[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120214161901.GL12117@google.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:19:01 -0800
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yong.zhang0@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] percpu: use raw_local_irq_* in _this_cpu op
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:30:06AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 07:03:38PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> >> It doesn't make sense to trace irq off or do irq flags
> >> lock proving inside 'this_cpu' operations, so replace local_irq_*
> >> with raw_local_irq_* in 'this_cpu' op.
> >>
> >> Also the patch fixes one lockdep warning[1], which is caused
> >> by the added local_irq_save/restore(flags) in this_cpu_inc
> >> called by __debug_atomic_inc: kernel/lockdep.c
> >
> > I think this isn't gonna hurt anything but I don't understand why the
> > lockdep warning is triggering when using traced version. Can you
> > please explain that in a bit more detail in the patch description?
>
> In trace_hardirqs_on_caller:kernel/lockdep.c, __debug_atomic_inc
> will be called to add on 'this_cpu' variable, so may introduce recursive
> trace_hardirqs_on|off_caller called.
Ah, okay, so lockdep itself is using this_cpu ops. Can you please
repost the patch with the above info in the description?
Thank you.
--
tejun
--
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