Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:12:05 -0400 | From | "Ryan Hope" <> | Subject | Re: Performance Question: BUG_ON vs. WARN_ON_ONCE |
| |
i forgot to mention that my system did not die, i was compiling a kernel at the time and the compile froze, but i was able to cancel it and restart the compile, my system stayed alive
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 12:10 AM, Ryan Hope <rmh3093@gmail.com> wrote: > well the bug I recieved looked like it had to do with highmem and this > was the only code relating to mem that got touched, as for the other > person, their crash was reproducible and it definitely was an oops, > numlock led started to blink and system was unresponsive, for both of > us > reverting this change seems fix the issue, my dmesg log is attached to > this message > > -Ryan > > On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 11:36 PM, Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu > <eduard.munteanu@linux360.ro> wrote: >> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 19:57:37 -0400 >> "Ryan Hope" <rmh3093@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> However, this causes the kernel to crash or oops under certain loads. >>> Reverting this change makes the error go away. Is there any sort of >>> performance difference between BUG_ON and WARN_ON_ONCE, I figure the >>> change was for a reason so I am wondering what will result from this >>> change. Any info would be appreciated. >>> >>> -Ryan >> >> Looks like WARN_ON_ONCE declares and uses a static int variable, so >> it's not reentrant. It should be an atomic static. Still, I don't see >> how this could crash the kernel or even oops, or have any other >> side-effects. >> >> Could you post the oops? Are you sure the oops you're seeing isn't just >> what WARN_ON et al. regularly produce? >> >> >> Eduard >> >
| |