Re: [patch] irqlock patch -G3. [was Re: odd memory corruption in 2.5.27?]

From: Linus Torvalds (torvalds@transmeta.com)
Date: Tue Jul 23 2002 - 18:56:48 EST


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