Re: start_kernel(): bug: interrupts were enabled early

[Christoph Lameter]

On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Matthew Wilcox wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 02:05:00PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > What I note is that lib/rwsem-spinlock.c seems to be rather inconsistent
> > in its use of spin_lock_irqsave/spin_lock_irqrestore versus
> > spin_lock_irq/spin_unlock_irq... in fact, __down_read is the *only*
> > place where we use the latter as opposed to the former.
> >
> > Is that a bug?  If so, it would certainly explain this behavior.
>
> It's based on down_read() and down_write() not being callable from
> interrupt context, or with interrupts disabled (since they can sleep).
> up_read(), up_write(), down_read_trylock(), down_write_trylock(),
> downgrade_write() can all be called from interrupt context since they
> cannot sleep.

Do not run the checks while we are in a single threaded context?

I thought we had some dynamic code patching thingamy that could change
those when we go to smp mode?

--
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/