From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
akpm@linuxfoundation.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
Steven Rostedt <srostedt@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [pchecks v2 2/2] percpu: Add preemption checks to __this_cpu ops
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 19:10:29 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130924171029.GB10261@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0000014150a21408-2d759c49-6a9e-4553-956f-2d4b53e710f8-000000@email.amazonses.com>
* Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com> wrote:
> Index: linux/lib/smp_processor_id.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/lib/smp_processor_id.c 2013-09-24 10:06:26.000000000 -0500
> +++ linux/lib/smp_processor_id.c 2013-09-24 10:14:19.412825970 -0500
> @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
> #include <linux/kallsyms.h>
> #include <linux/sched.h>
>
> -notrace unsigned int debug_smp_processor_id(void)
> +notrace static unsigned int check_preemption(char *what)
> {
> unsigned long preempt_count = preempt_count();
> int this_cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
> @@ -39,8 +39,8 @@ notrace unsigned int debug_smp_processor
> if (!printk_ratelimit())
> goto out_enable;
>
> - printk(KERN_ERR "BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [%08x] "
> - "code: %s/%d\n",
> + printk(KERN_ERR "BUG: using %s in preemptible [%08x] "
> + "code: %s/%d\n", what,
> preempt_count() - 1, current->comm, current->pid);
> print_symbol("caller is %s\n", (long)__builtin_return_address(0));
> dump_stack();
> @@ -51,5 +51,18 @@ out:
> return this_cpu;
> }
>
> +notrace unsigned int debug_smp_processor_id(void)
> +{
> + return check_preemption("smp_processor_id()");
> +
> +}
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(debug_smp_processor_id);
>
> +notrace void __this_cpu_preempt_check(void)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_THIS_CPU_PREEMPTION_CHECK
> + check_preemption("__this_cpu operation");
> +#endif
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__this_cpu_preempt_check);
Ok, this variant looks pretty good, modulo testing. I'd do:
s/check_preemption/check_preemption_disabled
but that's a minor detail.
> +config DEBUG_THIS_CPU_OPERATIONS
> + bool "Debug __this_cpu operations"
> + depends on DEBUG_PREEMPT
> + default n
> + help
> + Enables preemption checks for __this_cpu macros. These
> + are macros to generate single instruction operations on
> + per cpu data. The option only affects the __this_cpu variant
> + which is used when fallback to multiple instructions without
> + other synchronization is possible. A verification is then
> + done to make sure that the thread cannot be preempted.
I don't think there's a need to make this a separate preemption debug
option: smp_processor_id() is really just a subset of the checks.
So please just put it under CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT, there's no need to add
yet another x2 to the kernel Kconfig space. Maybe extend the DEBUG_PREEMPT
help text to explain that it also checks __this_cpu ops.
That will remove the #ifdef from lib/smp_processor_id.c and will simplify
debugging a bit as well.
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-09-24 17:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20130924154159.855373283@linux.com>
2013-09-24 15:41 ` [pchecks v2 1/2] Subject; percpu: Add raw_cpu_ops Christoph Lameter
2013-09-24 15:41 ` [pchecks v2 2/2] percpu: Add preemption checks to __this_cpu ops Christoph Lameter
2013-09-24 15:41 ` Christoph Lameter
2013-09-24 17:10 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2013-09-25 16:40 ` Christoph Lameter
2013-09-25 16:40 ` Christoph Lameter
2013-09-25 18:11 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-09-27 13:54 ` Christoph Lameter
2013-09-28 8:39 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-10-02 15:11 ` Christoph Lameter
2013-10-03 7:26 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-09-28 8:44 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-10-02 15:08 ` Christoph Lameter
2013-10-02 15:08 ` Christoph Lameter
2013-10-03 7:21 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-10-03 13:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-10-03 14:15 ` Christoph Lameter
2013-10-03 14:15 ` Christoph Lameter
2013-10-03 15:35 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-10-03 15:59 ` Christoph Lameter
2013-10-03 16:44 ` 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=20130924171029.GB10261@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).