From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752435Ab1ITPIC (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:08:02 -0400 Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:60861 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751527Ab1ITPIB convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:08:01 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] Introduce checks for preemptable code for this_cpu_read/write() From: Peter Zijlstra To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Steven Rostedt , Andi Kleen , LKML , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Christoph Lameter , Tejun Heo , Linus Torvalds Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:07:32 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <20110919212040.745370781@goodmis.org> <1316488378.29966.35.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Mailer: Evolution 3.0.3- Message-ID: <1316531252.13664.39.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 10:03 -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > Well yes the misunderstanding of per cpu operations was one reason why I > proposed the discussion on the subject of esoteric kernel synchronization. > I do not think that it was accepted. I don't think anybody here misunderstands it, we're just all very angry that its causing so much problems. __this_cpu doesn't have preempt debug checks, and there's a lot of this_cpu usage that really should have been __this_cpu. The very fact that a quick scan still reveals actual bugs should be a warning sign that this crap doesn't have enough sanity checks.