Re: [PATCH] Fix BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible codein print_fatal_signal()
From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Tue Jan 27 2009 - 07:46:57 EST
* Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 01/26, Ed Swierk wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 01:41 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > Ed, Ingo, but isn't it better to just use raw_smp_processor_id() in
> > > __show_regs() ? This is only debug info, the printed CPU doesn't
> > > have the "exact" meaning.
> >
> > I guess it doesn't really matter which CPU the signal handling thread
> > happened to be running on, but are there other situations where
> > show_regs() is always expected to print the correct CPU (and if not,
> > why bother printing the CPU at all)? Disabling preemption here seems
> > the safest approach and doesn't add much overhead.
>
> OK.
>
> > > And, without the comment, it is not easy to see why print_fatal_signal()
> > > disables preeemption before show_regs().
> >
> > Agreed; here's an updated patch.
>
> Actually, now I think show_regs() has other reasons to run with the
> preemption disabled, __show_regs() does read_crX()/etc, I guess it is
> better to stay on the same CPU throughout.
>
> So, Ed, I am sorry for noise.
another reason why it's good to run it with preemption disabled is that
whatever context does show_regs() ought to be non-preemptible as it deals
with CPU local details.
In the fatal-signals case we indeed have a "it does not really matter"
boundary case, but in most of the other uses we want to be non-preemptible
in debug contexts, and want a constant reminder in terms of
smp_processor_id() warnings if that expectation is not met.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/