lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jul]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] machine_power_off: not only local_irq_disable but also do disable preemption
On Sun, Jul 06, 2014 at 12:20:03AM +0530, pawandeep oza wrote:
> preempt_check_resched would check TIF_NEED_RESCHED
> #define preempt_check_resched() \
> do { \
> if (unlikely(test_thread_flag(TIF_NEED_RESCHED))) \
> preempt_schedule(); \
> } while (0)
>
> there is a chance that just beofre we disabled irqs, somebody would have
> marked the flag to current, and
> later on, it might happen that, current gets replaced by the process which
> tries to hold a spin_lock which has already been previosuly held by CPU1
> when
> was being plugged out by smp_send_stop.

And preempt_schedule() contains:

/*
* If there is a non-zero preempt_count or interrupts are disabled,
* we do not want to preempt the current task. Just return..
*/
if (likely(!preemptible()))
return;

where preemptible() is defined as:

(preempt_count() == 0 && !irqs_disabled())

which means... if interrupts are disabled (as they are) we don't
return from preempt_schedule() without doing anything.

Scheduling with interrupts disabled is a bug. If you need to add
preempt_disable() before local_irq_disable() to prevent it, then
there's a bug somewhere else, and we don't "fix" that by adding
preempt_disable(). The real bug needs to be found and fixed.

--
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: now at 9.7Mbps down 460kbps up... slowly
improving, and getting towards what was expected from it.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-07-05 22:21    [W:0.196 / U:0.584 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site