[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1302211920440.22263@ionos>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 19:21:59 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nohz: Make tick_nohz_irq_exit() irq safe
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> > */
> > void irq_exit(void)
> > {
> > +#ifndef __ARCH_IRQ_EXIT_IRQS_DISABLED
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > +
> > + local_irq_save(flags);
> > +#else
> > + BUG_ON(!irqs_disabled();
> > +#endif
>
> Guys, STOP DOING THIS!
>
> Adding BUG_ON()'s just makes things much much much worse. There is
> *never* a reason to add a BUG_ON(). And doing it in an interrupt path
> is totally unacceptable. BUG_ON() makes it almost impossible to debug
> something, because you just killed the machine. So using BUG_ON() for
> "please notice this" is stupid as hell, because the most common end
> result is: "Oh, the machine just hung with no messages".
>
> Make it WARN_ON_ONCE() if you absolutely have to let people know, but
> for something like this, why would you do even that?
This was a draft patch. I made it a WARN_ON_ONCE() already.
We really want to enforce that irq_exit() is called with interrupts
disabled.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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