From: Rik van Riel on 30 Mar 2010 14:10
On 03/30/2010 01:56 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-30 at 13:36 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> Increase the PREEMPT_BITS to 12, to deal with a larger number
>> of locks that can be taken in mm_take_all_locks or other places
>> where many instances of the same type of lock can be taken.
>> The overflow of PREEMPT_BITS should be harmless, since it simply
>> increments the counter into the SOFTIRQ_BITS, and the counter
>> will be decremented again later.
>> However, the overflow does lead to backtraces with CONFIG_PREEMPT_DEBUG
>> Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel<riel(a)redhat.com>
>> Reported-by: Kent Overstreet<kent.overstreet(a)gmail.com>
>> Kent, does this patch fix the issue you saw?
>> Peter, I know you do not like this approach. However, I could not
>> think of a way around mm_take_all_locks. We need to take those locks
>> and want to track that fact for lock debugging...
> Does this even boot? It tramples all over PREEMPT_ACTIVE for x86.
Awww nuts. I thought PREEMPT_ACTIVE used the same scheme of
adding shifts, but now I see it is hard coded on x86. Doh!
I'm guessing the best thing to do would be to remove the
PREEMPT_ACTIVE #define on x86 and use the one from hardirq.h?
> Also, you'll need to convince mingo and tglx too.. taking that many
> spinlocks is utter suckage..
No argument there. I can't think of an alternative to mm_take_all_locks
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/