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

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Thu, 2004-09-02 at 10:32, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * 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

I've had linux-2.6.9-rc1-bk8-Q7 lock up on me this morning not long
after starting a glibc compile resulting from: emerge -uo gnome
although it did survive a make World on xorg-cvs.

Could this have been caused by the bug under discussion?

Unfortunatly I don't have much testing time before I go on hollidays,
so for now I went back to linux-2.6.9-rc1-bk6-Q5 which on my machine is
rock solid.

Peter

-
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/