[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090131005815.5b662a50.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 00:58:15 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: andi@...stfloor.org, roger.larsson@...atan.se,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, rml@...h9.net,
pavel@....cz, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: PROBLEM: in_atomic() misuse all over the place
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 00:48:43 -0800 (PST) David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:49:33 -0800
>
> > Hang on. You said
> >
> > That's typically for softirq vs non softirq, which is important for
> > the network stack.
> >
> > that's what in_softirq() does.
> >
> > Now, if networking is indeed using in_atomic() to detect
> > are-we-inside-a-spinlock then networking is buggy.
> >
> > If networking is _not_ doing that then we can safely switch it to
> > in_sortirq() or in_interrupt(). And this would reenable the bug
> > detection which networking's use of in_atomic() accidentally
> > suppressed.
>
> I think this is a reasonable conclusion, looking at the
> gfp_any() users.
>
> Feel free to change it to use in_softirq() and see what
> explodes in -mm. Report to me your findings :-)
I don't get much network coverage in my testing...
I went for in_interrupt(), which is in_softirq()||in_hardirq(). I
guess that was a bit of a cop-out if the design decision is that this
is purely for are-we-in-softirq decision making.
I'll set it to in_softirq() and shall see what happens..
--
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