[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BB3B8FC.1020608@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 14:05:00 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
CC: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rabin Vincent <rabin@....in>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, penberg@...helsinki.fi,
cl@...ux-foundation.org,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: start_kernel(): bug: interrupts were enabled early
On 03/31/2010 02:01 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 01:47:23PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>>>> This appears to be caused by:
>>>>>
>>>>> start_kernel -> radix_tree_init -> kmem_cache_create (slub) ->
>>>>> down_write -> __down_write (lib/rwsem-spinlock.c) -> spin_unlock_irq
>>>>>
>>> That's going to be hard to fix.
>>>
>> spin_unlock_irq from arm is different from other archs?
>
> Not all arches use lib/rwsem-spinlock.c. In particular, x86 doesn't
> when X86_XADD is set.
>
What I note is that lib/rwsem-spinlock.c seems to be rather inconsistent
in its use of spin_lock_irqsave/spin_lock_irqrestore versus
spin_lock_irq/spin_unlock_irq... in fact, __down_read is the *only*
place where we use the latter as opposed to the former.
Is that a bug? If so, it would certainly explain this behavior.
-hpa
--
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