lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Sep]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] BUG(): sched.c: Line 944

    On 17 Sep 2002, Robert Love wrote:

    > [...] How can this in_atomic() test _ever_ catch a preemption bug? We
    > cannot enter the scheduler off kernel preemption unless
    > preempt_count==0. This is a test to catch bugs in other parts of the
    > kernel, e.g. where code explicitly calls schedule() while holding a
    > lock.

    you are right, i was confusing this with the older check for disabled
    interrupt in preempt_schedule() [which i'd still find useful].

    The smp_processor_id() test catches true preemption bugs. So does
    preempt_count() underflow detection.

    i do agree with Alan - there can be nothing bad in trying to fix all that
    non-preempt-aware code right now, before it becomes too late.

    Ingo

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:0.068 / U:120.964 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site