[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1003311640410.30456@router.home>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:42:25 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rabin Vincent <rabin@....in>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, penberg@...helsinki.fi,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: start_kernel(): bug: interrupts were enabled early
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 02:05:00PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > 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.
>
> It's based on down_read() and down_write() not being callable from
> interrupt context, or with interrupts disabled (since they can sleep).
> up_read(), up_write(), down_read_trylock(), down_write_trylock(),
> downgrade_write() can all be called from interrupt context since they
> cannot sleep.
Do not run the checks while we are in a single threaded context?
I thought we had some dynamic code patching thingamy that could change
those when we go to smp mode?
--
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