From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753810AbYKSKWU (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Nov 2008 05:22:20 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752859AbYKSKWA (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Nov 2008 05:22:00 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:34192 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752596AbYKSKWA (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Nov 2008 05:22:00 -0500 Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:21:46 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: David Miller Cc: jarkao2@gmail.com, jeff@garzik.org, johannes@sipsolutions.net, wferi@niif.hu, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] netconsole: Disable softirqs in write_msg() Message-ID: <20081119102145.GA15741@elte.hu> References: <20081119093004.GD22309@elte.hu> <20081119.014222.193698982.davem@davemloft.net> <20081119101441.GB6184@elte.hu> <20081119.021701.133290720.davem@davemloft.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081119.021701.133290720.davem@davemloft.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00,DNS_FROM_SECURITYSAGE autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 0.0 DNS_FROM_SECURITYSAGE RBL: Envelope sender in blackholes.securitysage.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * David Miller wrote: > From: Ingo Molnar > Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:14:41 +0100 > > > Thanks! We strengthened/cleaned up the bh checks a tiny bit > > recently, maybe that caused this to pop up. It might explain some > > netconsole lockups perhaps? Or, the new warning might be bogus. > > It's a bit of a maze. > > See my other reply to Jarek's patch posting, we're supposed to > ignore all RX packets in this situation, and all the logic appears > to be there, but it's not happening on that person's system for some > reason. Saw that ... an insanely complex scenario. So at least there's a partial result: it appears to not be a false positive warning in the generic softirq/lockdep code. Ingo