From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S964910AbbI2MBO (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 29 Sep 2015 08:01:14 -0400
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:53227 "EHLO
	bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S964878AbbI2MBI (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 29 Sep 2015 08:01:08 -0400
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 13:55:39 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric?= Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 12/11] sched: Add preempt_count invariant check
Message-ID: <20150929115539.GE3816@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20150929092825.540553633@infradead.org>
 <20150929102755.GD3816@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20150929105603.GG11639@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CA+55aFzFiMf1vDLmQztJoL7QjtQeE4tbO-CY=XgzVfHUD6MgtA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFzFiMf1vDLmQztJoL7QjtQeE4tbO-CY=XgzVfHUD6MgtA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 07:55:49AM -0400, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > + * Initial preempt_count value; reflects the preempt_count schedule invariant
> > + * which states that during schedule preempt_count() == 2.
> 
> Is this actually *true*?
> 
> preempt_count() is two only if preemption is enabled. But spinlocks do
> not actually update the preemption count if there is no preemption, so
> these kinds of checks and comments that aren't even inside #ifdef
> CONFIG_PREEMPT seem to be actively misleading.
> 
> I do believe that the preempt count is stable - but the actual value
> would seem to depend on config options.

Right, 2*PREEMPT_DISABLE_OFFSET is the 'right' number. That ends up
being 0 for !PREEMPT_COUNT configs.

I'll update the Changelog to be more accurate on this.