Re: [PATCH 3/4]percpu_counter: fix code for 32bit systems

[Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>]

Le mercredi 13 avril 2011 à 10:41 +0800, Shaohua Li a écrit :
> On Wed, 2011-04-13 at 10:32 +0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > Le mercredi 13 avril 2011 à 09:01 +0800, Shaohua Li a écrit :
> > > On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 17:03 +0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Hmm... did you test this with LOCKDEP on ?
> > > > 
> > > > You add a possible deadlock here.
> > > > 
> > > > Hint : Some percpu_counter are used from irq context.
> > > there are some places we didn't disable interrupt, for example
> > > percpu_counter_add. So the API isn't irq safe to me.
> > > 
> > 
> > So what ? Callers must disable IRQ before calling percpu_counter_add(),
> > and they actually do in network stack. Please check again,
> > tcp_sockets_allocated for example.
> Did you check other code? for example, __vm_enough_memory() doesn't
> disable IRQ before calling percpu_counter_add().
> 

Did you read my mails ?

I said : fix the buggy parts, dont add new bugs or slow down parts that
are OK.


> > > > This interface assumes caller take the appropriate locking.
> > > no comments say this, and some places we don't hold locking.
> > > for example, meminfo_proc_show.
> > > 
> > 
> > This doesnt answer my question about LOCKDEP ;)
> > 
> > Just fix the few callers that might need a fix, since this is the only
> > way to deal with potential problems without adding performance penalty
> > (for stable trees)
> I mean the interface doesn't assume caller should take locking. Since
> there isn't locking taking, we should make the interface itself correct,
> instead of fixing caller.
> 

No _please_

Q: Is spin_lock() irq safe ?
A: No

Q: Should we make it irq safe ?
A: just use spin_lock_... variants