From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [patch] fix spinlock-debugging smp_processor_id() usage
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:54:17 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20051220105417.GA15120@elte.hu> (raw)
when a spinlock debugging check hits, we print the CPU number as an
informational thing - but there is no guarantee that preemption is off
at that point - hence we should use raw_smp_processor_id(). Otherwise
DEBUG_PREEMPT will print a warning. With the patch applied, the warning
goes away and only the spinlock-debugging info is printed.
it's an obvious bugfix, and i think it should get into 2.6.15.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Index: linux/lib/spinlock_debug.c
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/lib/spinlock_debug.c
+++ linux/lib/spinlock_debug.c
@@ -20,7 +20,8 @@ static void spin_bug(spinlock_t *lock, c
if (lock->owner && lock->owner != SPINLOCK_OWNER_INIT)
owner = lock->owner;
printk("BUG: spinlock %s on CPU#%d, %s/%d\n",
- msg, smp_processor_id(), current->comm, current->pid);
+ msg, raw_smp_processor_id(),
+ current->comm, current->pid);
printk(" lock: %p, .magic: %08x, .owner: %s/%d, .owner_cpu: %d\n",
lock, lock->magic,
owner ? owner->comm : "<none>",
@@ -78,8 +79,8 @@ static void __spin_lock_debug(spinlock_t
if (print_once) {
print_once = 0;
printk("BUG: spinlock lockup on CPU#%d, %s/%d, %p\n",
- smp_processor_id(), current->comm, current->pid,
- lock);
+ raw_smp_processor_id(), current->comm,
+ current->pid, lock);
dump_stack();
}
}
@@ -120,7 +121,8 @@ static void rwlock_bug(rwlock_t *lock, c
if (xchg(&print_once, 0)) {
printk("BUG: rwlock %s on CPU#%d, %s/%d, %p\n", msg,
- smp_processor_id(), current->comm, current->pid, lock);
+ raw_smp_processor_id(), current->comm,
+ current->pid, lock);
dump_stack();
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
/*
@@ -148,8 +150,8 @@ static void __read_lock_debug(rwlock_t *
if (print_once) {
print_once = 0;
printk("BUG: read-lock lockup on CPU#%d, %s/%d, %p\n",
- smp_processor_id(), current->comm, current->pid,
- lock);
+ raw_smp_processor_id(), current->comm,
+ current->pid, lock);
dump_stack();
}
}
@@ -220,8 +222,8 @@ static void __write_lock_debug(rwlock_t
if (print_once) {
print_once = 0;
printk("BUG: write-lock lockup on CPU#%d, %s/%d, %p\n",
- smp_processor_id(), current->comm, current->pid,
- lock);
+ raw_smp_processor_id(), current->comm,
+ current->pid, lock);
dump_stack();
}
}
reply other threads:[~2005-12-20 10:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20051220105417.GA15120@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.