lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jun]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: BUG: tracer_alloc_buffers returned with preemption imbalance
From
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com> wrote:
>> >  static inline int rcu_blocking_is_gp(void)
>> >  {
>> >         might_sleep();  /* Check for RCU read-side critical section. */
>> > +       preempt_disable();
>> >         return num_online_cpus() <= 1;
>> > +       preempt_enable();
>> >  }
>>
>> Thank you!  I have no idea how a preempt_disable() causes that badness
>> to happen, but this commit is not yet critically important, so I will
>> drop it.
>
> preempt_enable() becomes dead code because of the return statement?
> I wonder why gcc didn't issue a warning (or I failed to catch it)...
>

gcc has an option -Wunreachable-code, but we don't enable it
when building kernel, nor it will be enabled with -Wall. If we enable it,
we will have many false-positives as we have lots of debugging code
which is not reachable unless we enable some debugging option.

However, when I test it manually with the following code:

~% cat /tmp/unreachable.c
int main(void)
{
int a = 0;
a++;
return ++a;
a++;
}
~% gcc -Wunreachable-code -O0 -c /tmp/unreachable.c

gcc still doesn't give me any warning for the last line of the code,
gcc optimizes it out silently, I am wondering if this is a gcc bug.
--
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: 2012-06-24 11:21    [W:0.114 / U:12.628 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site