Re: fix BUG: using smp_processor_id() in touch_nmi_watchdog andtouch_softlockup_watchdog

[Yong Zhang]

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 09:34:52AM -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> I don't recall any requirement to have preemption disabled when using
> those functions.

Isn't that implicit? I mean the caller of touch_{softlockup|nmi}_watchdog
will sticky to that cpu before it finish running.

> It seems sensible to put it in the
> touch_{softlockup|nmi}_watchdog code.

I don't think so. Such as:

	...
      preempt_disable()                <===A
      touch_{softlockup|nmi}_watchdog  <===B
      preempt_enable()                 <===C
        ...

You just scroll A and C into B, but what will happen before preempt
occur before A?

> 
> I assume the reason for having preemption disabled when using
> smp_processor_id() is that the code could migrate to another cpu when
> rescheduled?

If the migration could happen, then we could touch the wrong cpu-data,
and the detection on the original cpu will trigger anyway.

> 
> I don't see a problem with the patch, but my low level understanding of
> the __get_cpu_var vs. per_cpu isn't very strong.

Maybe we should use __raw_get_cpu_var() instead.

Thanks,
Yong
--
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/