Re: More linux-2.6.9 module problems

From: Mike Waychison
Date: Tue Nov 09 2004 - 17:34:35 EST

Hash: SHA1

linux-os wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Mike Waychison wrote:
>> Hash: SHA1
>> linux-os wrote:
>>> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Mike Waychison wrote:
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>> linux-os wrote:
>>>>> I have a memory-test procedure that tests
>>>>> memory on a board, accessed via the PCI bus.
>>>>> There is a lot of RAM and it's bank-switched
>>>>> into some 64k windows so it takes a lot of
>>>>> time to test, about 60 seconds.
>>>>> This is in a module, therefore inside the kernel.
>>>>> When it is invoked via an ioctl() call, the
>>>>> kernel is frozen for the whole test-time. The
>>>>> test procedure does not use any spin-locks nor
>>>>> does it even use any semaphores. It just does a
>>>>> bunch of read/write operations over the PCI/Bus.
>>>>> I thought that I could enable the preemptible-
>>>>> kernel option and the machine would then respond
>>>>> normally. Not so. Even with 4 CPUs, when one
>>>>> ioctl() is busy in the kernel, nothing else
>>>>> happens until its done. Even keyboard activity
>>>>> is gone, no Caps Lock and no Num Lock, no `ping`
>>>>> response over the network. However, the machine
>>>>> comes back to life when the memory-test is done.
>>>>> This is kernel version 2.6.9. Is it possible that
>>>>> somebody left on the BKL when calling a module
>>>>> ioctl() on this version? If not, what do I do
>>>>> to be able to execute a time-consuming procedure
>>>>> from inside the kernel? Do I break it up into
>>>>> sections and execute schedule() periodically
>>>>> (temporary work-around --works)??
>>>> The BKL has always been grabbed across ioctls. Drop the lock when you
>>>> enter your f_op->ioctl call and grab it again open completion.
>>> Hmmm. I get 'scheduling while atomic' screaming across the screen!
>>> There are no atomic operations in my ioctl functions so I don't
>>> know what its complaining about. I think I shouldn't have tried
>>> to do anything with BKL because I (my task) doesn't own it.
>> 'Scheduling while atomic' means you called some function that may
>> schedule itself out while you are holding a spinlock. Note that the BKL
>> is not a regular spinlock, and scheduling is allowed while holding it.
>> Please see
>> by Robert Love, the section titled "The Big Kernel Lock"
>> Something else is wrong with your code.
> Not quite. Something is wrong with the e100 network driver used in
> 2.6.9. When I do:
> int ioctl(,,,,)
> {
> int ret;
> unlock_kernel();
> ret = original_ioctl(...);
> lock_kernel();
> return ret;
> }
> In my driver, completely unrelated to the network.... It's
> something in the e100 network driver that the kernel's
> complaining about. If I shut down the network and remove
> the network driver module I don't have any problems while
> enabling BKL. Everything runs fine.

Don't do that. ioctls rightly-assume that the BKL is held when they are

When I said drop the lock, I meant for _your_ ioctl code.

- --
Mike Waychison
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
1 (650) 352-5299 voice
1 (416) 202-8336 voice

NOTICE: The opinions expressed in this email are held by me,
and may not represent the views of Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at