Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 17 Sep 2002 20:46:29 +0200 (CEST) | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [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/
|  |