[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1236934491.5188.209.camel@laptop>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 09:54:51 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
jbeulich@...ell.com, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu
Cc: linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:core/ipi] generic-ipi: eliminate spurious pointless
WARN_ON()s
On Fri, 2009-03-13 at 01:39 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Commit-ID: 6a09dfa870ba0ed21b1124539968a36b42660661
> Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/tip/6a09dfa870ba0ed21b1124539968a36b42660661
> Author: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>
> AuthorDate: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:21:50 +0000
> Commit: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> CommitDate: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 02:14:41 +0100
>
> generic-ipi: eliminate spurious pointless WARN_ON()s
>
> Namely during early boot, the panic() or BUG() paths may end up in
> smp_call_function_*() with just a single online CPU. In that situation
> the warnings generated are not only meaningless, but also result in
> relevant output being cluttered.
>
> Therefore, defer the WARN_ON() checks until after the (unaffected from
> the problem that is being attempted to be detected here) cases have
> been handled.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>
> LKML-Reference: <49B91A7E.76E4.0078.0@...ell.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
I don't really like this,.. it moves the WARN_ON to weird locations
without an explanatory comment.
Wouldn't leaving them in place but changing them to:
WARN_ON(irqs_disabled() && system_state == SYSTEM_RUNNING);
be clearer?
> ---
> kernel/smp.c | 12 ++++++------
> 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c
> index 7ad2262..37b90a9 100644
> --- a/kernel/smp.c
> +++ b/kernel/smp.c
> @@ -284,9 +284,6 @@ int smp_call_function_single(int cpu, void (*func) (void *info), void *info,
> */
> this_cpu = get_cpu();
>
> - /* Can deadlock when called with interrupts disabled */
> - WARN_ON(irqs_disabled());
> -
> if (cpu == this_cpu) {
> local_irq_save(flags);
> func(info);
> @@ -295,6 +292,9 @@ int smp_call_function_single(int cpu, void (*func) (void *info), void *info,
> if ((unsigned)cpu < nr_cpu_ids && cpu_online(cpu)) {
> struct call_single_data *data = &d;
>
> + /* Can deadlock when called with interrupts disabled */
> + WARN_ON(irqs_disabled());
> +
> if (!wait)
> data = &__get_cpu_var(csd_data);
>
> @@ -364,9 +364,6 @@ void smp_call_function_many(const struct cpumask *mask,
> unsigned long flags;
> int cpu, next_cpu, this_cpu = smp_processor_id();
>
> - /* Can deadlock when called with interrupts disabled */
> - WARN_ON(irqs_disabled());
> -
> /* So, what's a CPU they want? Ignoring this one. */
> cpu = cpumask_first_and(mask, cpu_online_mask);
> if (cpu == this_cpu)
> @@ -387,6 +384,9 @@ void smp_call_function_many(const struct cpumask *mask,
> return;
> }
>
> + /* Can deadlock when called with interrupts disabled */
> + WARN_ON(irqs_disabled());
> +
> data = &__get_cpu_var(cfd_data);
> csd_lock(&data->csd);
>
> --
> 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/
--
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