[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091019121327.GA11423@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:13:27 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Anirban Sinha <ani@...rban.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Anirban Sinha <asinha@...gmasystems.com>
Subject: Re: Kernel oops when clearing bgp neighbor info with TCP MD5SUM
enabled
Hi Anirban,
On 10/18, Anirban Sinha wrote:
>
> I have a question for you. The queue_work() routine which is called from
> schedule_work() does a put_cpu() which in turn does a enable_preempt(). Is
> this an attempt to trigger the scheduler?
No. please note that queue_work() does get_cpu() + put_cpu() to protect
against cpu_down() in between.
This can trigger the scheduler of course, but everything should be OK.
> One of the side affects of
> this enable_preempt() is the crash that we see below. What is happening
> is that a timer callback routine, in this case inet_twdr_hangman(),
> tries a bunch of cleanup until a threshold is reached. If further cleanups
> needs to be done beyond the threshold, it queues a work function. Now when
> the timer callback is run in __run_timers(), the routine grabs the value
> of preempt_count before and after the callback function call. If the two
> counts do not match, it calls BUG() (line 1037 in kernel/timer.c).
Yes, but I can't see how queue_work() can be involved, it doesn't change
->preempt_count. Note again it does put after get.
> Is is
> it illegal to schedule a work function from within a timer callback?
Yes sure.
I'd suppose that this unbalance comes from inet_twdr_hangman() pathes.
Could you verify this?
Oleg.
--
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