From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965744AbXDJE3r (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Apr 2007 00:29:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030332AbXDJE3r (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Apr 2007 00:29:47 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:34247 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965744AbXDJE3p (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Apr 2007 00:29:45 -0400 Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 00:29:39 -0400 From: Dave Jones To: Andrew Morton Cc: "Jeff V. Merkey" , Linux kernel , Venki Pallipadi Subject: Re: Preemption Broken: centrino_target busted under SMP on 2.6.20.4 Message-ID: <20070410042939.GA17179@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Dave Jones , Andrew Morton , "Jeff V. Merkey" , Linux kernel , Venki Pallipadi References: <46155CFF.70701@wolfmountaingroup.com> <20070405205034.GB3605@redhat.com> <20070409172651.9bc619d6.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070410023108.GA14081@redhat.com> <20070409194142.88f0a5e5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070410030500.GA15509@redhat.com> <20070410030823.GA16229@redhat.com> <20070409205136.75709d3e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070409205136.75709d3e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 08:51:36PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 23:08:23 -0400 Dave Jones wrote: > > > > This whole file is going away in .22, and we have a viable alternative in > > > .21 (acpi-cpufreq), so I'm not overly worried about fixing this up > > > given it only shows up in debug kernels, especially at this stage in -rc. > > > > > > (Yeah, it's a cop-out, but unless someone with more interest in this problem > > > steps up, I've bigger fishes to fry). > > > > One last try... > > (I didn't think too long about this, so this might be equally busted, > > but if so, see comment above). > > Yes, I expect that should squish the warnings. It looks all racy wrt cpu hotplug > and against async set_cpus_allowed(), but if those are our worst problems, we're > good. It probably needs a couple more preempt_enable()'s sprinkled throughout the function to take care of the break's. I also missed a goto case. Meh, this cure is as bad as the disease. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk