[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 15:52:20 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: rcu warnings cause stack overflow
On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 01:27:42PM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 04:14:48PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > Removing the WARN_ON_ONCE will fix this and, if lockdep is turned on, still
> > > will find illegal uses. But it won't work for lockdep off configs...
> > > So we probably want something better than the patch below.
> >
> > Ah ok. Hmm, but why are you using an exception to implement WARN_ON()
> > in s390? Is it to have a whole new stack for the warning path in order
> > to avoid stack overflow from the place that called the WARN_ON() ?
>
> The reason was to reduce the code footprint of the WARN_ON() and also
> be able to print the register contents at the time the warning happened.
Ah ok, makes sense.
>
> All architectures which define __WARN_TAINT implement warnings with
> exceptions. Currently that are parisc, powerpc, s390 and sh.
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists