[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4DEBA216.1080903@die-jansens.de>
Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2011 17:34:46 +0200
From: Arne Jansen <lists@...-jansens.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
efault@....de, npiggin@...nel.dk, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
frank.rowand@...sony.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [debug patch] printk: Add a printk killswitch to robustify NMI
watchdog messages
On 05.06.2011 17:13, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Arne Jansen<lists@...-jansens.de> wrote:
>
>> sched.c:934: in function __task_rq_lock
>> lockdep_assert_held(&p->pi_lock);
>
> Oh. Could you remove that line with the patch below - does it result
> in a working system?
yes.
>
> Now, this patch alone just removes a debugging check - but i'm not
> sure the debugging check is correct - we take the pi_lock in a raw
> way - which means it's not lockdep covered.
>
> So how can lockdep_assert_held() be called on it?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
> index fd18f39..a32316b 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -938,8 +938,6 @@ static inline struct rq *__task_rq_lock(struct task_struct *p)
> {
> struct rq *rq;
>
> - lockdep_assert_held(&p->pi_lock);
> -
> for (;;) {
> rq = task_rq(p);
> raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
> --
> 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