On Monday 14 February 2005 13:24, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 12:40 -0800, Mark Gross wrote: > > I'm working on a tweak to the preepmtive soft IRQ implementation using > > work queues and I'm having problems with a BUG assert when trying to > > queue_work. > > > > Souldn't I be able to call queue_work form ISR context? > > Yes, but not with interrupts disabled. >
Hmm. It seems to me that one should be able to call queue_work from wherever you can call raise_softirq. This constraint adds a bit of asymetry in the deffered processing API's > > --mgross > > > > --------------------------- > > > > | preempt count: 00000001 ] > > | 1-level deep critical section nesting: > > > > ---------------------------------------- > > .. [<c0140f5d>] .... print_traces+0x1d/0x60 > > .....[<c01042a3>] .. ( <= dump_stack+0x23/0x30) > > > > BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context IRQ 20(2039) at > > kernel/rt.c in_atomic():0 [00000000], irqs_disabled():1 > > Here you have interrupts disabled. Since you are tweaking the softirq I > don't know your code, but the kernel should not schedule after turning > off interrupts, and the spinlocks under the PREEMPT kernel, may now > sleep (unless they are raw_spin_locks). Here we also see that > queue_work calls spin_lock_irqsave. I'm suspecting that you turned off > interrupts somewhere. > > -- Steve I'll post my code soon, I hope. I now need to work around this API problem :( thanks, --mgross - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
