[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141031224237.GA29704@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 23:42:37 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
peter@...leysoftware.com, rjw@...ysocki.net,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
eparis@...hat.com, umgwanakikbuti@...il.com, marcel@...tmann.org,
ebiederm@...ssion.com, davem@...emloft.net, fengguang.wu@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] sched: Use WARN_ONCE for the might_sleep()
TASK_RUNNING test
On 10/31, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> In some cases this can trigger a true flood of output.
>
> Requested-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> ---
> kernel/sched/core.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -7301,7 +7301,7 @@ void __might_sleep(const char *file, int
> * since we will exit with TASK_RUNNING make sure we enter with it,
> * otherwise we will destroy state.
> */
> - if (WARN(current->state != TASK_RUNNING,
> + if (WARN_ONCE(current->state != TASK_RUNNING,
Agreed, but sorry for off-topic, can't resist.
Sometimes I hate WARN_ONCE() because you can't reproduce the problem
once again without reboot.
Perhaps WARN_ON_RATELIMIT() should be used more often (not sure about
this particular case). Or, perhaps, we can add a special section for
these "__warned" variables and add, say, sysctl which clears that
section ?
Oleg.
--
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