[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFwW139HZ6aNi_2Jf36kx53znZMKS1QO_4JVXJJYsSG6=A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 10:32:23 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Bruno Prémont <bonbons@...ux-vserver.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ilya Dryomov <ilya.dryomov@...tank.com>,
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Linux 3.19-rc5
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 7:47 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Perhaps sched_annotate_sleep() shouldn't depend on CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP
> too...
Ugh. That thing is horrible. The naming doesn't make it obvious at all
that it's actually making sure that we have state set to TASK_RUNNING,
and I could easily imagine that it would cause similar "busy-loops
while scheduling" issues if anybody ever uses it in the wrong context.
So I really think that whole thing is a sign of "the debug
infrastructure is buggy, and people are introducing fragile things to
just shut up the false positives".
I don't know how to fix it. I really get the feeling that the whole
new "nested sleep" detection code was a mistake to begin with, since
it wasn't even a real bug, and it has now created more bugs than it
ever detected afaik.
Linus
--
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