[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1281989096.1926.1952.camel@laptop>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 22:04:56 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: rostedt@...dmis.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kaber@...sh.net, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [LOCKDEP BUG][2.6.36-rc1] xt_info_wrlock?
On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 12:44 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> He's only accessing the per-cpu counter locks of other cpus.
>
> The per-cpu lock is only locally accessed by a cpu in software
> interrupt context.
>
> That is why his transformation is legal.
>
> Lockdep simply hasn't been informed of this invariant and has
> to assume the worst.
Something like the below will keep lockdep coverage, still going back to
RCU sounds like the best option.
---
include/linux/netfilter/x_tables.h | 9 +++++++++
1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/netfilter/x_tables.h b/include/linux/netfilter/x_tables.h
index 24e5d01..a195feb 100644
--- a/include/linux/netfilter/x_tables.h
+++ b/include/linux/netfilter/x_tables.h
@@ -511,12 +511,21 @@ static inline void xt_info_rdunlock_bh(void)
*/
static inline void xt_info_wrlock(unsigned int cpu)
{
+#ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
+ /*
+ * XXX foo
+ */
+ local_bh_disable();
+#endif
spin_lock(&per_cpu(xt_info_locks, cpu).lock);
}
static inline void xt_info_wrunlock(unsigned int cpu)
{
spin_unlock(&per_cpu(xt_info_locks, cpu).lock);
+#ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
+ local_bh_enable();
+#endif
}
/*
--
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