From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Horms Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] ipvs deadlock fix Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 13:21:12 +0300 Message-ID: <20050131102111.GA6279@verge.net.au> References: <200501310633.j0V6X1l01385@mail.osdl.org> <20050131093609.GA3804@verge.net.au> <20050131014722.77d732c4.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: davem@davemloft.net, netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: Andrew Morton Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050131014722.77d732c4.akpm@osdl.org> Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 01:47:22AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > Horms wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 10:33:02PM -0800, akpm@osdl.org wrote: > > > > > > > > > update_defense_level() is calling si_meminfo() from timer context. But > > > si_meminfo takes non-irq-safe locks. > > > > > > Move it all to keventd context. > > > > Would I be right in thinking that the offending lock is bdev_lock which > > is grabbed in nr_blockdev_pages() and thus that this is not an issue > > for 2.4 whose si_meminfo() does not have such a call? > > Yes, 2.4's si_meminfo() seems to be OK from interrupt context. Thanks. > On x86 - I didn't check the other architectures. Me neither. -- Horms