Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 24 Jul 2002 08:52:41 +0200 (SAST) | From | Zwane Mwaikambo <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |