[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080429.163007.59388708.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:30:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: tglx@...utronix.de
Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, harvey.harrison@...il.com,
mingo@...e.hu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bitops: remove "optimizations"
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
> Given that others who tested could not find one case where the
> optimization cases actually applied, and it's breaking things for me,
> my theory is that it's triggering for some obscure case on sparc64 and
> thus showing a bug in these optimizations since in practice I'm the
> only person to actually test this new code.
Ok, I think I see the problem.
The core issue is that (X << N) is undefined when N is >= the
word size, but that's exactly what the find_next_bit() inline
optimizations do.
This optimization code will trigger on 64-bit if NR_CPUS is set
to 64, and you actually have 64 cpus. It should also occur
on 32-bit if NR_CPUS=32 and you have 32 cpus.
The bogus expansion occurs in lib/cpumask.c:__next_cpu()
After processing cpu 63, we'll use offset==64 and thus try
to make the undefined shift I described above, causing the
caller's cpumask iteration loop to run forever.
This code was really not tested very well at all.
--
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