[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2375c9f91003150312u37dfd70fk55a4b8820e13590e@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:12:29 +0800
From: Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, peterz@...radead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.34-rc1: rcu lockdep bug?
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> Le lundi 15 mars 2010 à 17:39 +0800, Américo Wang a écrit :
>
>>
>> Ok, I think I found what lockdep really complains about, it is that we took
>> spin_lock in netpoll_poll_lock() which is in hardirq-enabled environment,
>> later, we took another spin_lock with spin_lock_irqsave() in netpoll_rx(),
>> so lockdep thought we broke the locking rule.
>>
>> I don't know why netpoll_rx() needs irq disabled, it looks like that no one
>> takes rx_lock in hardirq context. So can we use spin_lock(&rx_lock)
>> instead? Or am I missing something here? Eric? David?
>
> I am a bit lost.
>
> Could you give the complete picture, because I cannot find it in my
> netdev archives.
>
Sure, sorry for this.
Here is the whole thread:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/3/11/100
--
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