mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* error : preempt_count 1
@ 2002-05-13  6:25 Oliver Kowalke
  2002-05-13 16:18 ` Robert Love
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Oliver Kowalke @ 2002-05-13  6:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

Hello,

after shutdown (kernel 2.5.15) I've got :

erro: halt[8635] exited with preempt_count 1

What does it mean?
so long,
Oliver

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: error : preempt_count 1
  2002-05-13  6:25 error : preempt_count 1 Oliver Kowalke
@ 2002-05-13 16:18 ` Robert Love
  2002-05-14 16:45   ` Denis Vlasenko
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Robert Love @ 2002-05-13 16:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Oliver Kowalke; +Cc: linux-kernel

On Sun, 2002-05-12 at 23:25, Oliver Kowalke wrote:

> after shutdown (kernel 2.5.15) I've got :
> 
> erro: halt[8635] exited with preempt_count 1
> 
> What does it mean?

Absolutely nothing bad.  It is a debugging check to catch bad code that
does funny things with locks.  Ideally, every program should call unlock
for each instance it called lock - balancing everything out and giving a
preempt_count of zero.

Some code in the kernel, knowing it is shutting down, does not bother to
drop any held locks and subsequently you see that message.

Since it is triggering false positives, I will remove it eventually. 
For now it is incredibly useful for catching real problems.  And the
above, while harmless, could be fixed for "cleanliness" concerns.

	Robert Love


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: error : preempt_count 1
  2002-05-14 16:45   ` Denis Vlasenko
@ 2002-05-14 16:24     ` Robert Love
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Robert Love @ 2002-05-14 16:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: vda, torvalds; +Cc: linux-kernel

On Tue, 2002-05-14 at 09:45, Denis Vlasenko wrote:

> On 13 May 2002 14:18, Robert Love wrote:
>
> > Absolutely nothing bad.  It is a debugging check to catch bad code that
> > does funny things with locks.  Ideally, every program should call unlock
> > for each instance it called lock - balancing everything out and giving a
> > preempt_count of zero.
> 
> > Some code in the kernel, knowing it is shutting down, does not bother to
> > drop any held locks and subsequently you see that message.
> 
> > Since it is triggering false positives, I will remove it eventually.
> 
> I'd say don't remove it, just omit the 'error:' part - this will
> reduce panic mails on the subject.
> 
> > For now it is incredibly useful for catching real problems.  And the
> > above, while harmless, could be fixed for "cleanliness" concerns.

Not a bad idea ;-)

For now this will hopefully curb the inquiries - I can still remove it
later when I am confident that the core code is sane and if people still
whine.

Thanks,

	Robert Love

--- linux-2.5.15/kernel/exit.c	Sun May  5 20:37:59 2002
+++ linux/kernel/exit.c	Tue May 14 09:22:52 2002
@@ -526,7 +526,7 @@
 	del_timer_sync(&tsk->real_timer);
 
 	if (unlikely(preempt_get_count()))
-		printk(KERN_ERR "error: %s[%d] exited with preempt_count %d\n",
+		printk(KERN_ERR "%s[%d] exited with preempt_count %d\n",
 				current->comm, current->pid,
 				preempt_get_count());
 


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: error : preempt_count 1
  2002-05-13 16:18 ` Robert Love
@ 2002-05-14 16:45   ` Denis Vlasenko
  2002-05-14 16:24     ` Robert Love
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Denis Vlasenko @ 2002-05-14 16:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Robert Love; +Cc: linux-kernel

On 13 May 2002 14:18, Robert Love wrote:
> > erro: halt[8635] exited with preempt_count 1
> >
> > What does it mean?
>
> Absolutely nothing bad.  It is a debugging check to catch bad code that
> does funny things with locks.  Ideally, every program should call unlock
> for each instance it called lock - balancing everything out and giving a
> preempt_count of zero.

> Some code in the kernel, knowing it is shutting down, does not bother to
> drop any held locks and subsequently you see that message.

> Since it is triggering false positives, I will remove it eventually.

I'd say don't remove it, just omit the 'error:' part - this will
reduce panic mails on the subject.

> For now it is incredibly useful for catching real problems.  And the
> above, while harmless, could be fixed for "cleanliness" concerns.
--
vda

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2002-05-14 16:25 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2002-05-13  6:25 error : preempt_count 1 Oliver Kowalke
2002-05-13 16:18 ` Robert Love
2002-05-14 16:45   ` Denis Vlasenko
2002-05-14 16:24     ` Robert Love

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®