Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > Robert and George's patch doesn't seem to be optimal though - if we're
> > not going to preempt at spin_unlock() time, we need to preempt at
> > local_irq_restore() time. It'll be untrivial to fix all this, but this
> > very subtle change to the locking semantics with CONFIG_PREEMPT is quite
> > nasty.
>
> this is precisely the reason why we cannot pretend these bugs do not exist
> and just work this around in preempt_schedule().
But there is no bug in slab. The bug is that spin_unlock() is
scheduling inside local_irq_disable().
> Code that relies on
> cli/sti for atomicity should be pretty rare and limited, there's 1 known
> case so far where it leads to bugs.
Are you implying that all code which does spin_unlock() inside
local_irq_disable() needs to be converted to use _raw_spin_unlock()?
If so then, umm, ugh. I hope that the debug check is working
for CONFIG_PREEMPT=n.
BTW, what is the situation with spin_unlock_irq[restore]()? Seems
that these will schedule inside local_irq_disable() quite a lot?
-
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 30 2002 - 14:00:15 EST