netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [patch 2/2] ipvs deadlock fix

To: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] ipvs deadlock fix
From: Horms <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 13:21:12 +0300
Cc: davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20050131014722.77d732c4.akpm@osdl.org>
Mail-followup-to: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx>, davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
References: <200501310633.j0V6X1l01385@mail.osdl.org> <20050131093609.GA3804@verge.net.au> <20050131014722.77d732c4.akpm@osdl.org>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 01:47:22AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Horms <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 10:33:02PM -0800, akpm@xxxxxxxx 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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>