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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox