[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100415172421.GB5069@nowhere>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 19:24:22 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: PowerPC WARN_ON_ONCE() after merge of the final
tree (tip related)
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 04:03:58PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/lockdep.c b/kernel/lockdep.c
> > index 78325f8..65d4336 100644
> > --- a/kernel/lockdep.c
> > +++ b/kernel/lockdep.c
> > @@ -2298,7 +2298,11 @@ void trace_hardirqs_on_caller(unsigned long ip)
> > return;
> >
> > if (unlikely(curr->hardirqs_enabled)) {
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > +
> > + raw_local_irq_save(flags);
> > debug_atomic_inc(redundant_hardirqs_on);
> > + raw_local_irq_restore(flags);
> > return;
> > }
> > /* we'll do an OFF -> ON transition: */
>
> that looks rather ugly. Why not do a raw:
>
> this_cpu_inc(lockdep_stats.redundant_hardirqs_on);
>
> which basically open-codes debug_atomic_inc(), but without the warning?
There is also no guarantee we are in a non-preemptable section. We can then
also race against another cpu.
I'm not sure what to do.
--
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