[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100313053356.GC3704@hack>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 13:33:56 +0800
From: Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
peterz@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.34-rc1: rcu lockdep bug?
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 02:37:38PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>Le vendredi 12 mars 2010 à 21:11 +0800, Américo Wang a écrit :
>
>> Oh, but lockdep complains about rcu_read_lock(), it said
>> rcu_read_lock() can't be used in softirq context.
>>
>> Am I missing something?
>
>Well, lockdep might be dumb, I dont know...
>
>I suggest you read rcu_read_lock_bh kernel doc :
>
>/**
> * rcu_read_lock_bh - mark the beginning of a softirq-only RCU critical
>section
> *
> * This is equivalent of rcu_read_lock(), but to be used when updates
> * are being done using call_rcu_bh(). Since call_rcu_bh() callbacks
> * consider completion of a softirq handler to be a quiescent state,
> * a process in RCU read-side critical section must be protected by
> * disabling softirqs. Read-side critical sections in interrupt context
> * can use just rcu_read_lock().
> *
> */
>
>
>Last sentence being perfect :
>
>Read-side critical sections in interrupt context
>can use just rcu_read_lock().
>
Yeah, right, then it is more likely to be a bug of rcu lockdep.
Paul is looking at it.
Thanks!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists