From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
akpm@linuxfoundation.org, Steven Rostedt <srostedt@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [pchecks v1 4/4] percpu: Add preemption checks to __this_cpu ops
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 10:03:47 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130924080347.GH28538@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <000001414c47a1da-a60858ec-6fe0-4560-a859-8274151411bf-000000@email.amazonses.com>
* Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com> wrote:
> --- linux.orig/kernel/sched/core.c 2013-09-23 10:24:47.371629684 -0500
> +++ linux/kernel/sched/core.c 2013-09-23 10:24:47.371629684 -0500
> @@ -2566,6 +2566,29 @@ asmlinkage void __sched preempt_schedule
> exception_exit(prev_state);
> }
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT
> +/*
> + * This function is called if the kernel is compiled with preempt
> + * support for each __this_cpu operations. It verifies that
> + * preemption has been disabled.
> + *
> + * The function cannot be a macro due to the low level nature
> + * of the per cpu header files.
> + */
> +void __this_cpu_preempt_check(void)
> +{
> + int p;
> +
> + p = preemptible();
> + if (p) {
> + printk(KERN_ERR "__this_cpu but preemptable."
> + " preempt_count=%d irqs_disabled=%d\n",
> + preempt_count(), irqs_disabled());
> + dump_stack();
> + }
> +
> +}
> +#endif /* CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT */
During past review of your series Peter Zijlstra very explicitly told you
to reuse (and unify with) the preempt checks in lib/smp_processor_id.c!
See debug_smp_processor_id().
The problem isn't just that you are duplicating code and adding
unnecessary #ifdefs into the wrong place, the bigger problem is that you
are implementing weak checks which creates unnecessary raw_*() pollution
all across the kernel.
Your lack of cooperation is getting ridiculous!
My NAK still stands, obviously.
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-09-24 8:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20130923191256.584672290@linux.com>
2013-09-23 19:12 ` [pchecks v1 2/4] Use raw cpu ops for calls that would trigger with checks Christoph Lameter
2013-09-24 7:28 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-09-24 7:32 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-09-24 12:45 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-09-24 7:34 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-09-23 19:12 ` [pchecks v1 1/4] Subject; percpu: Add raw_cpu_ops Christoph Lameter
2013-09-23 19:24 ` [pchecks v1 4/4] percpu: Add preemption checks to __this_cpu ops Christoph Lameter
2013-09-24 8:03 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2013-09-24 14:24 ` Christoph Lameter
2013-09-24 15:18 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-09-24 15:35 ` Christoph Lameter
2013-09-24 17:26 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-09-25 16:46 ` Christoph Lameter
2013-09-25 18:26 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-09-27 14:36 ` Christoph Lameter
2013-09-28 8:52 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-09-23 19:24 ` [pchecks v1 3/4] Use raw_cpu_ops for refresh_cpu_vm_stats() Christoph Lameter
2013-09-24 7:43 ` Ingo Molnar
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=20130924080347.GH28538@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=srostedt@redhat.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.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.