Re: [regression] boot failure on alpha, bisected
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Date: 2012-10-07 17:32:18
Also in:
lkml
On 10/07, Al Viro wrote:
On Sun, Oct 07, 2012 at 06:55:34PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:quoted
Hmm. I know nothing about arch/alpha and I can't understand its entry.S. But _it seems_ to me that do_notify_resume() is called with irqs disabled. If this is true, then imho arch/alpha should be fixed. Before this commit task_work_run() enabled irqs, but this was the "side effect" of spin_lock_irq/spin_unlock_irq, we should not rely on this.Um... There's a bunch of architectures that are in the same situation. grep for do_notify_resume() and you'll see...
And every do_notify_resume() should be changed anyway, do_signal() and tracehook_notify_resume() should be re-ordered.
It needs to be dealt with sanely, and actually have patches for alpha going in that direction, but breaking a bunch of architectures is not a good thing, obviously. So you've bought yourself a major PITA for coming weeks...
So perhaps the patch below until they are fixed?
--- x/kernel/task_work.c
+++ x/kernel/task_work.c@@ -51,6 +51,9 @@ void task_work_run(void) struct task_struct *task = current; struct callback_head *work, *head, *next; + if (WARN_ONCE(irqs_disabled(), "notify_resume() with irqs_disabled")) + local_irq_enable(); + for (;;) { /* * work->func() can do task_work_add(), do not set