Re: [Linux 2.6.29-rc2] BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>]

On Thursday 29 January 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> 
> > On Tuesday 27 January 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > 
> > > * Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > In fact whatever check you put in it's _always_ going to be 
> > > > > fundamentally more fragile than direct instrumentation: you cannot 
> > > > > possibly check all possible places that enable interrupts. (they could 
> > > > > be disabling interrupts as a _restore_irqs() sequence for example)
> > > > 
> > > > In this particular case, I'm not really interested in that.  What I'm 
> > > > interested in is which driver's ->suspend_late() or ->resume_early() (or 
> > > > the equivalents for sysdevs) has enabled interrupts, which is quite easy 
> > > > to check directly.
> > > 
> > > But this is exactly what it does - without any need for debug checks 
> > > spread around!
> > > 
> > > You'll get a _full stack dump_ from the very driver that is enabling 
> > > interrupts! You dont get a trace - you get a stack dump of the very place 
> > > that is buggy. It does not get any better than that.
> > 
> > I'm not going to argue.
> > 
> > Nevertheless, IMO something like the patch below should be sufficient to catch
> > these bugs.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Rafael
> > 
> > 
> > ---
> >  drivers/base/power/main.c |   12 ++++++++++++
> >  drivers/base/sys.c        |   21 ++++++++++++++++-----
> >  include/linux/pm.h        |   18 ++++++++++++++++++
> >  3 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> hm, so now you sprinkle debug checks all around the code, instead of 
> putting in a single pair of:
> 
>     force_irqs_off_start();
>     ...
>     force_irqs_off_end();

And what debug options exactly would that require to be set to work?

> which would catch everything that your checks would catch - and it would 
> catch more.

Except that the checks trigger in specific places, so if a check triggers you
know precisely where the bug happened regardless of what garbage is in the call
trace.

> In what way is your approach better?

That depends on the answer to my question above.

Thanks,
Rafael