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

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* mika.penttila@kolumbus.fi <mika.penttila@kolumbus.fi> 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