[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1233422632.4787.31.camel@laptop>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 18:23:52 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Alexey Zaytsev <alexey.zaytsev@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [git pull] scheduler fixes
On Sat, 2009-01-31 at 18:11 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
> > index 52bbf1c..5686bb5 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched.c
> > @@ -4440,7 +4450,7 @@ void __kprobes sub_preempt_count(int val)
> > /*
> > * Underflow?
> > */
> > - if (DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(val > preempt_count()))
> > + if (DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(val > preempt_count() - (!!kernel_locked())))
> > return;
> > /*
> > * Is the spinlock portion underflowing?
Since the commit msg of 01e3eb8 says:
kernel_locked() is not a valid test in IRQ context (we update the
BKL's ->lock_depth and the preempt count separately and non-atomicalyy),
so we cannot put it into the generic preempt debugging checks which
can run in IRQ contexts too.
Another possibility would be writing it like:
if (DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(val > preempt_count() -
(in_interrupt() ? 0 : !!kernel_locked())))
Which might just work because we're in sub_preempt_count, before we
actually do the subtraction, so in_interrupt() will still be true.
--
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