Re: [PATCH 1/7] introduce atomic_dec_and_lock_irqsave()
From: Oleg Nesterov
Date: Wed Aug 30 2006 - 07:25:24 EST
On 08/30, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > > Why does this need protection against interrupts?
> >
> > uidhash_lock can be taken from irq context. For example, delayed_put_task_struct()
> > does __put_task_struct()->free_uid().
>
> AFAICT it's called via rcu, does that mean anything released via rcu has
> to be protected against interrupts?
RCU means softirq, probably we can use spin_lock_bh() to protect against deadlock.
But free_uid() may be called with irqs disabled, we can't use local_bh_enable()
in such a case.
Oleg.
-
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/