[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1268401058.3141.9.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:37:38 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
peterz@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.34-rc1: rcu lockdep bug?
Le vendredi 12 mars 2010 à 21:11 +0800, Américo Wang a écrit :
> Oh, but lockdep complains about rcu_read_lock(), it said
> rcu_read_lock() can't be used in softirq context.
>
> Am I missing something?
Well, lockdep might be dumb, I dont know...
I suggest you read rcu_read_lock_bh kernel doc :
/**
* rcu_read_lock_bh - mark the beginning of a softirq-only RCU critical
section
*
* This is equivalent of rcu_read_lock(), but to be used when updates
* are being done using call_rcu_bh(). Since call_rcu_bh() callbacks
* consider completion of a softirq handler to be a quiescent state,
* a process in RCU read-side critical section must be protected by
* disabling softirqs. Read-side critical sections in interrupt context
* can use just rcu_read_lock().
*
*/
Last sentence being perfect :
Read-side critical sections in interrupt context
can use just rcu_read_lock().
--
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