[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170116172129.GD6500@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 18:21:29 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, dvhart@...ux.intel.com,
fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com, bobby.prani@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/20] lockdep: Make RCU suspicious-access
splats use pr_err
On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 01:13:03AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> This commit switches RCU suspicious-access splats use pr_err()
> instead of the current INFO printk()s. This change makes it easier
> to automatically classify splats.
>
> Reported-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 12 ++++++------
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> index 7c38f8f3d97b..844cd04bb453 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> @@ -4412,13 +4412,13 @@ void lockdep_rcu_suspicious(const char *file, const int line, const char *s)
> #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU_REPEATEDLY */
> /* Note: the following can be executed concurrently, so be careful. */
> printk("\n");
> - printk("===============================\n");
> - printk("[ INFO: suspicious RCU usage. ]\n");
> + pr_err("===============================\n");
> + pr_err("suspicious RCU usage. ]\n");
> print_kernel_ident();
> - printk("-------------------------------\n");
> - printk("%s:%d %s!\n", file, line, s);
> - printk("\nother info that might help us debug this:\n\n");
> - printk("\n%srcu_scheduler_active = %d, debug_locks = %d\n",
> + pr_err("-------------------------------\n");
> + pr_err("%s:%d %s!\n", file, line, s);
> + pr_err("\nother info that might help us debug this:\n\n");
> + pr_err("\n%srcu_scheduler_active = %d, debug_locks = %d\n",
> !rcu_lockdep_current_cpu_online()
> ? "RCU used illegally from offline CPU!\n"
> : !rcu_is_watching()
This makes it inconsistent with the rest of lockdep; why are these more
important?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists