lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 2.6.27-rc4: lots of 'in_atomic():1, irqs_disabled():0' with software-raid1
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:27:13 +1000 Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> wrote:

> On Thursday August 28, jens.axboe@oracle.com wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 28 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > >
> > > Cant sleep inside rcu_read_lock(), with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU=n, at least.
> > >
> > > Dunno if it's legal if CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU=y. Hopefully not - that
> > > would be insane. But I've failed to keep up with rcu goings-on
> > > recently.
> >
> > Doh right, we of course can't block inside a RCU section. Then
> > bitmap.c:write_sb_page() wants fixing:
> >
> > rcu_read_lock();
> > rdev_for_each_rcu(...)
> > md_super_write(...)
> > bio_alloc(GFP_NOIO, 1);
> >
> > Neil?
>
>
> Yes......
>
> And not only can't I call bio_alloc inside the rcu_read_lock, I also
> cannot call submit_bio, as that can do a mempool alloc for a request
> structure.

I'm curious about how this happened.

afaict from reading the code, this:

rcu_read_lock();
might_sleep();
rcu_read_unlock();

will warn if CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU=n but won't warn if
CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU=y. If correct, that's a nasty trap.

Is that what you did?


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-08-28 11:03    [W:0.075 / U:30.320 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site