[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4934F1E2.3020409@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 09:29:22 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: adobriyan@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: net-next: lockdep complains re percpu counters
David Miller a écrit :
> From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
> Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 17:36:56 +0100
>
>> [PATCH] net: percpu_counter_inc() should not be called in BH-disabled section
>>
>> I checked all per_cpu_counter_xxx() usages in network tree, and I think
>> all call sites are BH enabled except one in inet_csk_listen_stop().
>>
>> commit dd24c00191d5e4a1ae896aafe33c6b8095ab4bd1
>> (net: Use a percpu_counter for orphan_count)
>> replaced atomic_t orphan_count to a percpu_counter.
>>
>> atomic_inc()/atomic_dec() can be called from any context, while percpu_counter_xxx()
>> should be called from a consistent state.
>>
>> For orphan_count, this context can be the BH-enabled one.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
>
> I applied this preemptively even though Alexey hasn't given
> test feedback yet, and I also added a mention of his report
> in the commit message.
Hum, this patch was necessary but wont help Alexy case that was
not related, if I undertsnad well its oops.
Its oops was about nr_files and a network percpu_counter, one
always called in BH-enabled context, one always in BD-disabled context.
We need a core change here, so that lockdep dont assume all percpu_counter
have the same class.
I know nothing about lockdep so a fix could take me some time, one
can beat me easily ;)
--
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