lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Oct]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 2.6.0-test7-mm1
Ben Collins <bcollins@debian.org> wrote:
>
> > highlevel_add_host() does read_lock() and then proceeds to do things like
> > starting kernel threads under that lock. The locking is pretty broken
> > in there :(
>
> No, highlevel_add_host() itself doesn't start any threads. But it does
> pass around data that needs to be locked from changes, and one of the
> handlers happens to start a thread, and other things allocate memory
> (such as this case).
>
> It's ugly, and I've been trying to clean it up. This case can be fixed
> quickly with a simple check in hpsb_create_hostinfo() to pass GFP_ATOMIC
> to kmalloc.

nodemgr_add_host() looks like the hard one. Maybe make hl_drivers_lock a
sleeping lock?

> My problem right now, is I don't use any architectures that support
> preempt, so I don't see a lot of these problems, like I catch with
> CONFIG_SMP.

Anton had a ppc64 patch which implemented the preempt_count beancounting
without actually implementing premption. So might_sleep() does the right
thing.

-
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 13:49    [W:0.060 / U:6.360 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site