lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Jul]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Corruption Stats: Suggested Blacklist from the data


On Thu, 30 Jul 1998, MOLNAR Ingo wrote:
>
> there is a difference, back half a year i had some very rare lockups
> occuring when some (buggy) code did a lock_kernel() with IRQs turned off.
> (this might block a pending APIC irq, typically it was the timer
> interrupt, and if another CPU is waiting for jiffies to increase, we were
> cooked.)

Good call. Checking that local interrupts were enabled when trying to get
the kernel lock was _not_ one of the sanity checks I had (I was checking
the sanity of the lock itself, rather than checking the sanity of the
caller).

I'm compiling the kernel with an added test right now - that would
certainly have explained some problems. Trying to get the kernel lock with
interrupts off is a rather bad idea,

Linus



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:43    [W:0.047 / U:0.968 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site