Re: [debug patch] printk: Add a printk killswitch to robustify NMIwatchdog messages

[Arne Jansen]

On 05.06.2011 17:13, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Arne Jansen<lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
>
> > sched.c:934: in function __task_rq_lock
> >          lockdep_assert_held(&p->pi_lock);
>
> Oh. Could you remove that line with the patch below - does it result
> in a working system?

yes.

> Now, this patch alone just removes a debugging check - but i'm not
> sure the debugging check is correct - we take the pi_lock in a raw
> way - which means it's not lockdep covered.
>
> So how can lockdep_assert_held() be called on it?
>
> Thanks,
>
> 	Ingo
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
> index fd18f39..a32316b 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -938,8 +938,6 @@ static inline struct rq *__task_rq_lock(struct task_struct *p)
>   {
>   	struct rq *rq;
>
> -	lockdep_assert_held(&p->pi_lock);
> -
>   	for (;;) {
>   		rq = task_rq(p);
>   		raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
> --
> 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/

--
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/