Re: [patch] voluntary-preempt-2.6.9-rc1-bk4-Q8

[Ingo Molnar]

* mika.penttila@xxxxxxxxxxx <mika.penttila@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Ingo,
> 
> I think there might be a problem with voluntary-preempt's hadling of
> softirqs. Namely, in cond_resched_softirq(), you do
> __local_bh_enable() and local_bh_disable(). But it may be the case
> that the softirq is handled from ksoftirqd, and then the preempt_count
> isn't elevated with SOFTIRQ_OFFSET (only PF_SOFTIRQ is set). So the
> __local_bh_enable() actually makes preempt_count negative, which might
> have bad effects. Or am I missing something?

you are right. Fortunately the main use of cond_resched_softirq() is via
cond_resched_all() - which is safe because it uses softirq_count(). But
the kernel/timer.c explicit call to cond_resched_softirq() is unsafe.
I've fixed this in my tree and i've added an assert to catch the
underflow when it happens.

	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/