lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: use of preempt_count instead of in_atomic() at leds-gpio.c
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 21:36:04 -0300 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@hmh.eng.br> wrote:

> Well, so far so good for LEDs, but what about the other users of in_atomic
> that apparently should not be doing it either?

Ho hum. Lots of cc's added.



./arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c

Looks wrong.

./arch/m68k/atari/time.c

Possibly buggy: deadlockable

./sound/core/seq/seq_virmidi.c

Possibly buggy

./net/iucv/iucv.c
./kernel/power/process.c

Just a debug check.

./drivers/s390/char/sclp_tty.c

Possibly buggy: deadlockable

./drivers/s390/char/sclp_vt220.c

Possibly buggy: deadlockable

./drivers/s390/net/netiucv.c

Possibly buggy: deadlockable

./drivers/char/isicom.c

Possibly buggy: deadlockable

./drivers/usb/misc/sisusbvga/sisusb_con.c

Possibly buggy: deadlockable

./drivers/net/usb/pegasus.c

Possibly buggy: deadlockable (I assume)

./drivers/net/wireless/airo.c

Possibly buggy: deadlockable

./drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt73usb.c

Possibly buggy: deadlockable (I assume)

./drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2500usb.c

Possibly buggy: deadlockable (I assume)

./drivers/net/wireless/hostap/hostap_ioctl.c

Possibly buggy: deadlockable (I assume)

./drivers/net/wireless/zd1211rw/zd_usb.c

Possibly buggy: deadlockable (I assume)

./drivers/net/irda/sir_dev.c

Possibly buggy: deadlockable

./drivers/net/netxen/netxen_nic_niu.c

Possibly buggy: deadlockable

./drivers/net/netxen/netxen_nic_init.c

Possibly buggy: deadlockable

./drivers/ieee1394/ieee1394_transactions.c

Possibly buggy: deadlockable

./drivers/video/amba-clcd.c

Possibly buggy: deadlockable

./drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c

Possibly buggy: deadlockable


The usual pattern for most of the above is

if (!in_atomic())
do_something_which_might_sleep();

problem is, in_atomic() returns false inside spinlock on non-preptible
kernels. So if anyone calls those functions inside spinlock they will
incorrectly schedule and another task can then come in and try take the
already-held lock.

Now, it happens that in_atomic() returns true on non-preemtible kernels
when running in interrupt or softirq context. But if the above code really
is using in_atomic() to detect am-i-called-from-interrupt and NOT
am-i-called-from-inside-spinlock, they should be using in_irq(),
in_softirq() or in_interrupt().



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-21 02:13    [W:0.323 / U:0.416 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site