Re: [PATCH] 2.4.18 raid1 - fix SMP locking/interrupt

Andrew Morton (
Mon, 25 Mar 2002 12:22:34 -0800

Manfred Spraul wrote:
> >
> > However a bare spin_unlock_irq() in a function means that
> > callers which wish to keep interrupts disabled are subtly
> > subverted. We've had bugs from this before.
> >
> It is trivial to catch such bugs at runtime. I tried it a year ago, and
> immediately run into sleep_on() users that legitimately call
> spin_lock_irq() with disabled interrupts. Perhaps they are gone now,
> I'll retest my patch.

heh. Yes, I tried that too a year or so ago. Basically just

if (!(eflags & 0x0200))

to spin_lock_irq(). There was a *lot* of whining.

> > So the irqrestore functions are much more robust. I believe
> > that they should be the default choice. The non-restore
> > versions should be viewed as a micro-optimised version,
> > to be used with caution. The additional expense of the save/restore
> > is quite tiny - 20-30 cycles, perhaps.
> OTHO, if a function doesn't work correctly if it's called with disabled
> interrupts, then it should not use spin_lock_irqsave() - it's
> misleading.
> e.g. if it calls kmalloc(GFP_KERNEL), down(), schedule(), etc.

mm? Those are legal (albeit unpleasant) inside local_irq_save(),
but illegal inside global_cli() in 2.5. Aren't they? If not,
then release_kernel_lock() needs talking to.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at