From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@gmail.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, bugme-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org,
marcus@better.se,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@linux-foundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 10326] New: inconsistent lock state in net_rx_action
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:55:42 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080327085542.GA2778@ami.dom.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080326171403.ad186037.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 05:14:03PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
...
> > >> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10326
...
> No, it's not an irq_disable() thing, directly.
>
> What lockdep is saying is that sky2_poll() is taking napi->poll_lock for
> writing with softirqs enabled, but net_rx_action() takes the same lock from
> within softirq context.
>
> If sky2_poll() always takes napi->poll_lock under local_irq_disable() then
> that would be a lockdep bug.
sky2_poll() doesn't take napi->poll_lock; this lock is taken by
netpoll_poll() before calling sky2_poll(). And before this hardirqs
are disabled in write_msg(). So, theoretically lockdep could be right
if sky2_poll() would enable irqs after this. (If it were done in
netpoll - lockdep should warn before or after sky2_poll() call.)
But I really can't see any such possibility in sky2_poll().
Regards,
Jarek P.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-03-27 8:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <bug-10326-10286@http.bugzilla.kernel.org/>
2008-03-25 20:43 ` [Bugme-new] [Bug 10326] New: inconsistent lock state in net_rx_action Andrew Morton
2008-03-26 23:13 ` Jarek Poplawski
2008-03-27 0:14 ` Andrew Morton
2008-03-27 8:55 ` Jarek Poplawski [this message]
2008-03-27 9:08 ` Jarek Poplawski
2008-03-27 9:18 ` Andrew Morton
2008-03-27 10:07 ` Jarek Poplawski
2008-03-27 10:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-03-27 11:03 ` David Miller
2008-03-27 11:59 ` Marcus Better
2008-03-27 12:32 ` Jarek Poplawski
2008-03-27 21:44 ` David Miller
2008-03-27 12:22 ` Jarek Poplawski
2008-03-27 12:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-03-27 12:49 ` Jarek Poplawski
2008-03-27 21:56 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-03-27 22:22 ` Jarek Poplawski
2008-03-27 22:22 ` David Miller
2008-03-27 22:39 ` Jarek Poplawski
2008-03-28 0:59 ` David Miller
2008-03-28 10:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=20080327085542.GA2778@ami.dom.local \
--to=jarkao2@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bugme-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marcus@better.se \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
--cc=shemminger@linux-foundation.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).