[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFTL4hyBm8AH4UKyN2VaRb4yBt7C4rG1ETQ3qXvNUdbh5HzSng@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 19:17:09 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul McKenney <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: Debugging Thinkpad T430s occasional suspend failure.
2013/2/17 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>:
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 7:11 AM, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> preempt_value_in_interrupt() looks buggy in your patch: it makes
>> invoke_softirq() returning if (val & HARDIRQ_MASK). But that's always
>> true since you have moved further the sub_preempt_count(IRQ_EXIT)
>> further.
>
> No, that's not it. The value hasn't been written back yet, but it already did:
>
> + int offset = IRQ_EXIT_OFFSET;
> + int count = preempt_count() - offset;
>
> so the 'count' has the IRQ_EXIT_OFFSET already subtracted. So no,
> HARDIRQ_MASK is *not* always set.
Ah right. I was confused.
--
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