Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 23:26:33 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: annabellesgarden@yahoo.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.9-rc3-mm2
Message-ID: <20041004212633.GA13527@elte.hu>
References: <200410041634.24937.annabellesgarden@yahoo.de> <20041004122304.4f545f3c.akpm@osdl.org> <20041004122533.0a85a1ad.akpm@osdl.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20041004122533.0a85a1ad.akpm@osdl.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1200
Lines: 39


* Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote:

> Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote:
> >
> > You're the second person who is seeing in_interrupt() returning true when
> >  clearly it should not be doing so.  Ingo, did you do soemthing which might
> >  have caused this?
> 
> I'm suspecting that something is causing preempt_count() to overflow
> into the softirq counter.  An imbalanced preempt_disable(), for
> example.

yes, that was it. Must not put side-effects into a macro that is NOP on
!SMP.

	Ingo

Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

--- linux/include/net/neighbour.h.orig
+++ linux/include/net/neighbour.h
@@ -113,8 +113,9 @@ struct neigh_statistics
 
 #define NEIGH_CACHE_STAT_INC(tbl, field)				\
 	do {								\
-		(per_cpu_ptr((tbl)->stats, get_cpu())->field)++;	\
-		put_cpu();						\
+		preempt_disable();					\
+		(per_cpu_ptr((tbl)->stats, smp_processor_id())->field)++; \
+		preempt_enable();					\
 	} while (0)
 
 struct neighbour
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/