[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51CCD906.6030902@codyps.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 17:29:58 -0700
From: Cody P Schafer <devel-lists@...yps.com>
To: Eliezer Tamir <eliezer.tamir@...ux.intel.com>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
Don Skidmore <donald.c.skidmore@...el.com>,
e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
Eric Dumazet <erdnetdev@...il.com>,
Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, HPA <hpa@...or.com>,
Eilon Greenstien <eilong@...adcom.com>,
Or Gerlitz <or.gerlitz@...il.com>,
Amir Vadai <amirv@...lanox.com>,
Alex Rosenbaum <alexr@...lanox.com>,
Eliezer Tamir <eliezer@...ir.org.il>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next] net: poll/select low latency socket support
On 06/27/2013 05:25 PM, Cody P Schafer wrote:
> On 06/24/2013 12:28 AM, Eliezer Tamir wrote:
>> select/poll busy-poll support.
>> ...
>
> I'm seeing warnings about using smp_processor_id() while preemptable
> (log included below) due to this patch. I expect the use of
> ll_end_time() -> sched_clock() here is triggering this.
>
> Apologies if this has already been noted.
To be clear, given how sched_time() is used here the BUG appears
invalid, but we need a way to mark this as OK for the smp_processor_id()
checks so we don't get BUG spam.
> --
>
> # [ 3.114452] BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000]
> code: sh/62
...
--
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