Re: [patch] irqlock patch -G3. [was Re: odd memory corruption in

[Linus Torvalds]

On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
>  - slab.c needs to spin_unlock_no_resched(), instead of spin_unlock(). (It
>    also has to check for preemption in the right spot.) This should fix
>    the memory corruption.

That cannot be right.

If we want to drop a spinlock but remain non-preemptible, we should
comment that a _lot_, and not just say "xxxx_no_resched()".

In fact, I personally think that every "spin_unlock_no_resched()" is an
outright BUG. Either the spin_unlock() makes us preemptible (in which case
it doesn't matter from a correctness point whether we schedule
immediately, or whether something else like a vmalloc fault might force us
to schedule soon afterwards), or the spin_unlock is doing something
magical, and we depend on the preemptability to not change.

In the latter case (which should be very very rare indeed), we should just
use

	/* BIG comment about what we're doing. */
	/* We're dropping the spinlock, but we remain non-preemptable */
	__raw_spin_unlock(..);

and then later on, when preemptability is over, we do

	local_irq_enable();
	preempt_enable();

so that we _clearly_ mark out the region where we must not re-schedule.

It is simply not acceptable to just play games with disabling interrupts,
and magically "knowing" that we're not preemptable without making that
clear some way.

Please get rid of spin_unlock_no_schedule() and friends, ok?

			Linus