lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jul]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] irqlock patch -G3. [was Re: odd memory corruption in2.5.27?]


On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> And yet here we have a case where a spin_unlock() will
> go and turn on local interrupts. Only with CONFIG_PREEMPT,
> and even then, extremely rarely.

I think that's just a bug, the same way it was a bug that preemtion would
sometimes set tsk->state to TASK_RUNNING.

I think Robert already sent a fix: make "preempt_schedule()" refuse to
schedule if local interrupts are disabled.

That, together with making it a warning (so that we can _fix_ places that
have unbalanced irq/spinlock behaviour) shoul dbe fine. Eventually, if we
think all places are fixed, we can remove the test from
preempt_schedule().

Linus

-
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:0.115 / U:0.196 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site