illegal instructions / irqs disabled warning
Kumar Gala
galak at kernel.crashing.org
Thu Dec 15 09:29:37 EST 2005
On Dec 14, 2005, at 4:07 PM, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Johannes Berg writes:
>
>> So I run across this warning:
>> [ 2724.595549] Debug: sleeping function called from invalid
>> context at arch/ppc/kernel/traps.c:528
>> [ 2724.595563] in_atomic():0, irqs_disabled():1
>
> Hmmm. What kernel version is this? I assume you are using ARCH=ppc,
> is that right?
>
>> But here's the actual question:
>> static inline unsigned long __copy_from_user(void *to,
>> const void __user *from, unsigned long size)
>>
>> might_sleep();
>> return __copy_from_user_inatomic(to, from, size);
>>
>>
>> Does that mean __copy_from_user_inatomic isn't actually valid to
>> call in
>> atomic context?
>
> No, it doesn't mean that. However, if the page isn't in memory,
> __copy_from_user_inatomic won't try to bring it in if it has been
> called from an atomic context (i.e. preempt or interrupts disabled).
>
> The real question is why we have interrupts disabled in the illegal
> instruction handler. There was a reason why I wanted interrupts
> disabled on entry to program_check_exception which I don't recall
> clearly at the moment, but I think program_check_exception should be
> doing a local_irq_enable() at some point (and it also shouldn't be
> trying to emulate instructions for the kernel).
I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking that interrupts disabled in
program_check_exception was a little odd. It looks like
AltiVecAssist is handling MSR[EE] properly.
The same issue existed in math-emu which is really just another case
of emulation.
- kumar
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list