lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Dec]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: linux-next: Tree for December 11

* Alexey Zaytsev <alexey.zaytsev@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 00:08, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> The warning can also be reproduced in qemu, so it was easy to bisect.
> >>
> >> commit 7317d7b87edb41a9135e30be1ec3f7ef817c53dd
> >> Author: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
> >> Date: Tue Sep 30 20:50:27 2008 +1000
> >>
> >> sched: improve preempt debugging
> >>
> >> This patch helped me out with a problem I recently had....
> >>
> >> Basically, when the kernel lock is held, then preempt_count
> >> underflow does not
> >> get detected until it is released which may be a long time (and arbitrarily,
> >> eg at different points it may be rescheduled). If the bkl is released at
> >> schedule, the resulting output is actually fairly cryptic...
> >>
> >> With any other lock that elevates preempt_count, it is illegal to schedule
> >> under it (which would get found pretty quickly). bkl allows scheduling with
> >> preempt_count elevated, which makes underflows hard to debug.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> >>
> >> I understand that not this particular commit is buggy, but at least
> >> I've got someone to add to the CC. ;)
> >>
> >> Also the author's e-mail looks suspicious.
> >
> > Suspicious in what way?
>
> Does not appear in signed-off-by.

yes, because i applied and tested it through before Nick was comfortable
with signing off on it.

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-12-16 23:25    [W:0.055 / U:0.424 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site