Re: [PATCH] idle thread preemption fix

[Olaf Hering]

 On Sat, Jan 08, Linux Kernel Mailing List wrote:

> ChangeSet 1.2316, 2005/01/08 13:53:41-08:00, mingo@xxxxxxx
> 
> 	[PATCH] idle thread preemption fix
> 	
> 	The early bootup stage is pretty fragile because the idle thread is not yet
> 	functioning as such and so we need preemption disabled.  Whether the bootup
> 	fails or not seems to depend on timing details so e.g.  the presence of
> 	SCHED_SMT makes it go away.
> 	
> 	Disabling preemption explicitly has another advantage: the atomicity check
> 	in schedule() will catch early-bootup schedule() calls from now on.
> 	
> 	The patch also fixes another preempt-bkl buglet: interrupt-driven
> 	forced-preemption didnt go through preempt_schedule() so it resulted in
> 	auto-dropping of the BKL.  Now we go through preempt_schedule() which
> 	properly deals with the BKL.
> 	
> 	Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
> 	Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx>
> 	Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx>

> diff -Nru a/init/main.c b/init/main.c
> --- a/init/main.c	2005-01-08 15:18:18 -08:00
> +++ b/init/main.c	2005-01-08 15:18:18 -08:00
> @@ -373,6 +373,12 @@
>  {
>  	kernel_thread(init, NULL, CLONE_FS | CLONE_SIGHAND);
>  	numa_default_policy();
> +	/*
> +	 * Re-enable preemption but disable interrupts to make sure
> +	 * we dont get preempted until we schedule() in cpu_idle().
> +	 */
> +	local_irq_disable();
> +	preempt_enable_no_resched();
>  	unlock_kernel();
>   	cpu_idle();
>  } 

Whats the purpose of local_irq_disable() here? Locks up my toys in
atkbd_init or IP hash foo functions.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/