From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: cliffw@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.10-rc1-mm5 - badness in enable_irg, BUG
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 11:27:09 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20041118102709.GA20901@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20041118011504.7dc87fe6.akpm@osdl.org>
* Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote:
> Well can we at least stick a comment in there explaining to the
> long-suffering reader what the difference is between
> smp_processor_id(), _smp_processor_id() and __smp_processor_id()? And
> what the architecture's options are?
doc-patch against -rc2-mm1 attached.
> Or should we go through every arch and rename their smp_processor_id()
> to __smp_processor_id()? That would make sense, and would simplify
> that piece of code.
initially the rate of false positives is like 90%, so there would only
be annoyance coming out of this patch. Arch maintainers should have the
ability to enable this on their own pace i think. Once the majority of
arches have enabled this we can force it on for all architectures.
Ingo
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
--- linux/include/linux/smp.h.orig
+++ linux/include/linux/smp.h
@@ -109,12 +109,24 @@ static inline void smp_send_reschedule(i
#endif /* !SMP */
+/*
+ * DEBUG_PREEMPT support: check whether smp_processor_id() is being
+ * used in a preemption-safe way.
+ *
+ * An architecture has to enable this debugging code explicitly.
+ * It can do so by renaming the smp_processor_id() macro to
+ * __smp_processor_id(). This should only be done after some minimal
+ * testingy, because usually there are a number of false positives
+ * that an architecture will trigger.
+ *
+ * To fix a false positives (i.e. smp_processor_id() use that the
+ * debugging code reports but which use for some reason is legal),
+ * change the smp_processor_id() reference to _smp_processor_id(),
+ * which is the nondebug variant. NOTE: dont use this to hack around
+ * real bugs.
+ */
#ifdef __smp_processor_id
# if defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT) && defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT)
- /*
- * temporary debugging check detecting places that use
- * smp_processor_id() in a potentially unsafe way:
- */
extern unsigned int smp_processor_id(void);
# else
# define smp_processor_id() __smp_processor_id()
prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-11-18 9:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-11-15 17:37 cliff white
2004-11-15 17:49 ` cliff white
2004-11-18 5:02 ` Andrew Morton
2004-11-18 9:52 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-11-18 9:15 ` Andrew Morton
2004-11-18 10:27 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
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=20041118102709.GA20901@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=cliffw@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.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
Powered by JetHome