[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090114114829.GI8625@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:48:29 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
dwmw2@...radead.org, fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/16] dma-debug: add core checking functions
* Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 12:11:27AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com> wrote:
> >
> > > +#define err_printk(dev, format, arg...) do { \
> > > + error_count += 1; \
> > > + if (show_all_errors || show_num_errors > 0) { \
> > > + WARN(1, "%s %s: " format, \
> > > + dev_driver_string(dev), \
> > > + dev_name(dev) , ## arg); \
> > > + } \
> > > + if (!show_all_errors && show_num_errors > 0) \
> > > + show_num_errors -= 1; \
> >
> > Note that the arithmetics here is SMP-unsafe: we only hold the hash bucket
> > so if two errors hit at once on two CPUs then the error tracking variables
> > can be accessed at once.
> >
> > I'd suggest a simple global lock for this error case (taken inside the
> > hash bucket lock), to be on the safe side.
>
> As I wrote in a previous email, a race here is no big deal. I add a
> comment to document it. Or do we want another global lock here?
we commonly use global locks in debug exception cases - to serialize
console output. But it's certainly no big deal.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists