Re: 2.6.17-rc5-mm1 - output of lock validator
- From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 10:33:14 +0200
* Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This is a serious bug in misrouted_irq(). disable_irq() is a
software state and must be repsected.
no that is not correct. The api is a mix kinda and broken; it really
DOES mean "shut this irq source off". That your handler won't get
called is an assumption! You do NOT disable your handler this way.
What we really need is a disable_irq_handler() api that does both!
well, the short-term answer is that Herbert's fix is correct and we need
to do it even if it degrades the efficiency of irqfixup/irqpoll.
after this fix is applied, irqfixup/irqpoll should be enhanced to take
advantage of disable_irq_handler().
in any case, correctness comes first - not honoring IRQ_DISABLED can
lead to lockups.
Ingo
-
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/
- References:
- Re: 2.6.17-rc5-mm1 - output of lock validator
- From: Herbert Xu
- Re: 2.6.17-rc5-mm1 - output of lock validator
- From: Arjan van de Ven
- Re: 2.6.17-rc5-mm1 - output of lock validator
- Prev by Date: Re: + big-kernel-lock-contention-in-do_open-and-blkdev_put.patch added to -mm tree
- Next by Date: Re: Question about tcp hash function tcp_hashfn()
- Previous by thread: Re: 2.6.17-rc5-mm1 - output of lock validator
- Next by thread: Re: [RFC 3/5] sched: Add CPU rate hard caps
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|