lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jul]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: odd memory corruption in 2.5.27?
    On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, george anzinger wrote:

    > protecting them with a combination of interrupt disables and
    > spin_locks. Preemption is allowed (incorrectly) if
    > interrupts are off and preempt_count goes to zero on the
    > spin_unlock. I will wager that this is an SMP machine.
    > After the preemption interrupts will be on (schedule() does
    > that) AND you could be on a different cpu. Either of these
    > is a BAD thing.
    >
    > The proposed fix is to catch the attempted preemption in
    > preempt_schedule() and just return if the interrupt system
    > is off. (Of course there is more that this to it, but I do
    > believe that the problem is known. You could blow this
    > assertion out of the water by asserting that the machine is
    > NOT smp.)

    I haven't looked at it further than gathering oopses and idly browsing
    surrounding code. About your assertion, you're almost right, its UP box
    running an SMP kernel w/ CONFIG_PREEMT.

    --
    function.linuxpower.ca

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:27    [W:2.540 / U:0.324 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site