Re: net-next: lockdep complains re percpu counters
From: Eric Dumazet <hidden>
Date: 2008-12-02 08:29:27
David Miller a écrit :
From: Eric Dumazet <redacted> Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 17:36:56 +0100quoted
[PATCH] net: percpu_counter_inc() should not be called in BH-disabled section I checked all per_cpu_counter_xxx() usages in network tree, and I think all call sites are BH enabled except one in inet_csk_listen_stop(). commit dd24c00191d5e4a1ae896aafe33c6b8095ab4bd1 (net: Use a percpu_counter for orphan_count) replaced atomic_t orphan_count to a percpu_counter. atomic_inc()/atomic_dec() can be called from any context, while percpu_counter_xxx() should be called from a consistent state. For orphan_count, this context can be the BH-enabled one. Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <redacted>I applied this preemptively even though Alexey hasn't given test feedback yet, and I also added a mention of his report in the commit message.
Hum, this patch was necessary but wont help Alexy case that was not related, if I undertsnad well its oops. Its oops was about nr_files and a network percpu_counter, one always called in BH-enabled context, one always in BD-disabled context. We need a core change here, so that lockdep dont assume all percpu_counter have the same class. I know nothing about lockdep so a fix could take me some time, one can beat me easily ;)