On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> - slab.c needs to spin_unlock_no_resched(), instead of spin_unlock(). (It
> also has to check for preemption in the right spot.) This should fix
> the memory corruption.
That cannot be right.
If we want to drop a spinlock but remain non-preemptible, we should
comment that a _lot_, and not just say "xxxx_no_resched()".
In fact, I personally think that every "spin_unlock_no_resched()" is an
outright BUG. Either the spin_unlock() makes us preemptible (in which case
it doesn't matter from a correctness point whether we schedule
immediately, or whether something else like a vmalloc fault might force us
to schedule soon afterwards), or the spin_unlock is doing something
magical, and we depend on the preemptability to not change.
In the latter case (which should be very very rare indeed), we should just
use
/* BIG comment about what we're doing. */
/* We're dropping the spinlock, but we remain non-preemptable */
__raw_spin_unlock(..);
and then later on, when preemptability is over, we do
local_irq_enable();
preempt_enable();
so that we _clearly_ mark out the region where we must not re-schedule.
It is simply not acceptable to just play games with disabling interrupts,
and magically "knowing" that we're not preemptable without making that
clear some way.
Please get rid of spin_unlock_no_schedule() and friends, ok?
Linus
-
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 23 2002 - 22:00:45 EST