From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Can request_irq be called under spinlock?
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 12:08:25 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <499481B9.4090202@goop.org> (raw)
Relatively recently, I've started seeing this report from my code:
BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at /home/jeremy/git/linux-2.6/mm/slab.c:2982
in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 1, pid: 2249, name: xenstored
Pid: 2249, comm: xenstored Not tainted 2.6.29-rc4-tip #22
Call Trace:
[<ffffffff80233e5d>] __might_sleep+0x113/0x115
[<ffffffff802a6f8c>] __kmalloc+0x67/0xe2
[<ffffffff802ebc85>] __proc_create+0x89/0x127
[<ffffffff803f1c5f>] ? bind_evtchn_to_cpu+0x4f/0xa0
[<ffffffff802ec0ad>] proc_mkdir_mode+0x2e/0x57
[<ffffffff802ec0ec>] proc_mkdir+0x16/0x18
[<ffffffff80270d99>] register_irq_proc+0x74/0xcf
[<ffffffff8026f5ab>] __setup_irq+0x19b/0x200
[<ffffffff8026f6e7>] request_irq+0xd7/0x100
[<ffffffff803f7d8e>] ? evtchn_interrupt+0x0/0xc1
[<ffffffff803f7d8e>] ? evtchn_interrupt+0x0/0xc1
[<ffffffff803f2856>] bind_evtchn_to_irqhandler+0x3d/0x5f
[<ffffffff803f7c8b>] evtchn_bind_to_user+0x54/0x72
[<ffffffff803f81cc>] evtchn_ioctl+0x180/0x39c
[<ffffffff802a8592>] ? __dentry_open+0x1a4/0x2a2
[<ffffffff802a9513>] ? nameidata_to_filp+0x46/0x57
[<ffffffff803f02ed>] ? pnpacpi_parse_allocated_resource+0x94/0x9b
[<ffffffff8020e6d9>] ? xen_force_evtchn_callback+0xd/0xf
[<ffffffff802b5f06>] vfs_ioctl+0x2f/0x7c
[<ffffffff802b63fe>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x4ab/0x503
[<ffffffff802aad0e>] ? __fput+0x1a1/0x1ae
[<ffffffff802b649d>] sys_ioctl+0x47/0x6a
[<ffffffff80212522>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
because I'm calling request_irq() while holding a spinlock.
request_irq() itself looks like its OK with that (it allocates with
GFP_ATOMIC, for example), but __setup_irq -> register_irq_proc ->
proc_mkdir ends up doing a GFP_KERNEL allocation, which leads to this
message.
I can rearrange this code to not do the call under lock, but it seems
like there was an unintentional change in API here.
Thanks,
J
next reply other threads:[~2009-02-12 20:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-02-12 20:08 Jeremy Fitzhardinge [this message]
2009-02-12 22:28 ` Can request_irq be called under spinlock? Thomas Gleixner
2009-02-12 23:35 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-02-13 3:38 ` Johannes Weiner
2009-02-13 9:52 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-13 9:23 ` Thomas Gleixner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=499481B9.4090202@goop.org \
--to=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=yinghai@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.