* Olaf Hering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Whats the purpose of local_irq_disable() here? Locks up my toys in
> atkbd_init or IP hash foo functions.
fix already posted a couple of days ago, see:
--
* Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Ingo !
>
> Could you explain me precisely what is the race you are fixing by
> adding local_irq_disable() to rest_init() ?
it can be bad for the idle task to hold the BKL and to have preemption
enabled - in such a situation the scheduler will get confused if an
interrupt triggers a forced preemption in that small window. But it's
not necessary to keep IRQs disabled after the BKL has been dropped. In
fact i think IRQ-disabling doesnt have to be done at all, the patch
below ought to solve this scenario equally well, and should solve the
PPC side-effects too.
Tested ontop of 2.6.11-rc2 on x86 PREEMPT+SMP and PREEMPT+!SMP (which
IIRC were the config variants that triggered the original problem), on
an SMP and on a UP system.
Ingo
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- linux/init/main.c.orig
+++ linux/init/main.c
@@ -373,14 +373,9 @@ static void noinline rest_init(void)
{
kernel_thread(init, NULL, CLONE_FS | CLONE_SIGHAND);
numa_default_policy();
- /*
- * Re-enable preemption but disable interrupts to make sure
- * we dont get preempted until we schedule() in cpu_idle().
- */
- local_irq_disable();
- preempt_enable_no_resched();
unlock_kernel();
- cpu_idle();
+ preempt_enable_no_resched();
+ cpu_idle();
}
/* Check for early params. */
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
