[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1206621014.8514.563.camel@twins>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:30:14 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
bugme-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org, marcus@...ter.se,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 10326] New: inconsistent lock state in
net_rx_action
On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 13:22 +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 11:56:19AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 02:18 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> ....
> > > I bet the net code is wrong and we missed it ;)
>
> It looks like you are natural born winner! Congratulations!
>
> > How about this:
> >
> > <irqs disabled>
> >
> > netpoll_poll()
> > poll_napi()
> > spin_trylock(&napi->poll_lock)
> > poll_one_napi()
> > napi->poll() := sky2_poll()
> > napi_complete()
> > local_irq_disable()
> > local_irq_enable() <--- *BUG*
>
> Yes! I missed it's unconditional here... Great catch!
>
> On the other hand, still a question why lockdep doesn't see this
> every day?
My guess is that it is a race between polling the device and irq pushing
the packet. That is, normally the IRQ handler wins and netpoll doesn't
have anything to do and it doesn't traverse this code path.
(although I must admit to being a little out of my depth here)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists