[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87mviz7nkn.fsf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 21:15:52 +0200
From: Nicolai Stange <nicstange@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Nicolai Stange <nicstange@...il.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] smp: smp_call_on_cpu(): use INIT_WORK_ONSTACK() for automatic work_struct
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 08:17:58PM +0200, Nicolai Stange wrote:
>> This new warning
>>
>> INFO: trying to register non-static key.
>> the code is fine but needs lockdep annotation.
>> turning off the locking correctness validator.
>> CPU: 0 PID: 82 Comm: kworker/0:1 Not tainted 4.8.0-rc6+ #360
>> Hardware name: Dell Inc. Latitude E6540/0725FP, BIOS A10 06/26/2014
>> Workqueue: events smp_call_on_cpu_callback
>
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/tip-8db549491c4a3ce9e1d509b75f78516e497f48ec@git.kernel.org
Ah, thanks for letting me know.
One minor question regarding your patch though: it hasn't got a
destroy_work_on_stack(). Isn't one needed because of
INIT_WORK_ONSTACK() -> __INIT_WORK() -> __init_work() ->
debug_object_init_on_stack() ?
At least work_on_cpu() destroys its local work_struct that way...
Thanks,
Nicolai
Powered by blists - more mailing lists