lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: NFS deadlock explained (on S/390)
From
Date

Manfred Spraul:

>I think in_irq() and in_interrupt() should check the cpu interrupt flag
>and return TRUE if the per-cpu interrupts are disabled.
>
>The current behavious is just weird:
> spin_lock_bh();
> in_interrupt(); --> true
> spin_unlock_bh();
> spin_lock_irq();
> in_interrupt(); --> false
> spin_unlock_irq();

I see. Instead of checking the interrupt flag in in_irq(), spin_lock_irq
could also simply increment the local_irq_count, just like spin_lock_bh
increments the local_bh_count.

>> Whether this same situation can explain the deadlocks seen on
>> other platforms depends on whether the drivers used there exhibit
>> similar locking behaviours as the QDIO driver, of course.
>
>It should be possible to detect that automatically: if
>dev_kfree_skb_any() is called outside irq context with disabled per-cpu
>interrupts then it's probably due to a spin_lock_irq() and could
>deadlock.

This would definitely solve the deadlock in our case. However, I'm not
sure this doesn't have some adverse effect on other code; e.g. there are
quite a few routines that use if (!in_interrupt()) as a bug-check, and
some might possibly be called from inside a spin_lock_irq ...



Mit freundlichen Gruessen / Best Regards

Ulrich Weigand

--
Dr. Ulrich Weigand
Linux for S/390 Design & Development
IBM Deutschland Entwicklung GmbH, Schoenaicher Str. 220, 71032 Boeblingen
Phone: +49-7031/16-3727 --- Email: Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com

-
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 13:01    [W:0.030 / U:0.220 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site