futex: Fix WARN_ON trigging on UP
Thomas,
Changes for v2:
o Added Darren's Acked-by to 2/2
o Two be's or not two be's... THAT is the question! (the answer is one be)
Please pull the futex patches from:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rostedt/linux-2.6-rt.git
branch: tip/futex/devel
Steven Rostedt (2):
WARN_ON_SMP(): Allow use in if statements on UP
futex: Fix WARN_ON() test for UP
----
include/asm-generic/bug.h | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++- kernel/futex.c | 4 ++-- 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
PATCH v2 1/2 WARN_ON_SMP(): Allow use in if statements on UP
From: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>
Both WARN_ON() and WARN_ON_SMP() should be able to be used in an if statement.
if (WARN_ON_SMP(foo)) { ... }Because WARN_ON_SMP() is defined as a do { } while (0) on UP, it can not be used this way.
Convert it to the same form that WARN_ON() is, even when CONFIG_SMP is off.
--- include/asm-generic/bug.h | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++- 1 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
include/asm-generic/bug.h +27 -1
@@ -165,10 +165,36 @@ extern void warn_slowpath_null(const char *file, const int line);#define WARN_ON_RATELIMIT (condition, state) \ WARN_ON((condition) && __ratelimit(state)) +/* +* WARN_ON_SMP() is for cases that the warning is either +* meaningless for !SMP or may even cause failures. +* This is usually used for cases that we have +* WARN_ON(!spin_is_locked(&lock)) checks, as spin_is_locked() +* returns 0 for uniprocessor settings. +* It can also be used with values that are only defined +* on SMP: +* +* struct foo { +* [...] +* #ifdef CONFIG_SMP +* int bar; +* #endif +* }; +* +* void func(struct foo *zoot) +* { +* WARN_ON_SMP(!zoot->bar); +* +* For CONFIG_SMP, WARN_ON_SMP() should act the same as WARN_ON(), +* and should be a nop and return false for uniprocessor. +* +* if (WARN_ON_SMP(x)) returns true only when CONFIG_SMP is set +* and x is true. +*/ #ifdef CONFIG_SMP # define WARN_ON_SMP (x) WARN_ON(x)#else -# define WARN_ON_SMP (x) do { } while (0) +# define WARN_ON_SMP (x) ({0;})#endif #endif
Signature · 1 line
1.7.2.3
Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] WARN_ON_SMP(): Allow use in if statements on UP
Quoted 2 lines · Steven Rostedt
+ * WARN_ON(!spin_is_locked(&lock)) checks, as
spin_is_locked()
+ * returns 0 for uniprocessor settings.
Arguably most spin_is_locked() usages should be removed in favour of something like lockdep_assert_held().
The latter only emits code then built with lockdep enabled and it checks we are indeed the owner, not some random other cpu.
Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] WARN_ON_SMP(): Allow use in if statements on UP
Quoted 10 lines · Peter Zijlstra
Quoted 2 lines · Steven Rostedt
+ * WARN_ON(!spin_is_locked(&lock)) checks, as
spin_is_locked()
+ * returns 0 for uniprocessor settings.Arguably most
spin_is_locked()usages should be removed in favour of something likelockdep_assert_held().The latter only emits code then built with lockdep enabled and it checks we are indeed the owner, not some random other cpu.
Perhaps we should have lockdep_assert_held() also be in "spin_is_locked()". The warning with spin_is_locked() is still nice to have because it can trigger on production systems that might find a code path that it's not locked. lockdep is too heavy to run on production systems. But if lockdep is enabled, the spin_is_locked() should probably check ownership too.
-- Steve
Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] WARN_ON_SMP(): Allow use in if statements on UP
Quoted 8 lines · Steven Rostedt
Quoted 7 lines · Peter Zijlstra
Quoted 2 lines · Steven Rostedt
+ * WARN_ON(!spin_is_locked(&lock)) checks, as
spin_is_locked()
+ * returns 0 for uniprocessor settings.Arguably most
spin_is_locked()usages should be removed in favour of something likelockdep_assert_held().
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines
The latter only emits code then built with lockdep enabled and it checks we are indeed the owner, not some random other cpu.
Perhaps we should have
lockdep_assert_held()also be in "spin_is_locked()".
Can't since its got stronger requirements.
Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] WARN_ON_SMP(): Allow use in if statements on UP
In reply to Peter ZijlstraQuoted 10 lines · Peter Zijlstra
Quoted 2 lines · Steven Rostedt
+ * WARN_ON(!spin_is_locked(&lock)) checks, as
spin_is_locked()
+ * returns 0 for uniprocessor settings.Arguably most
spin_is_locked()usages should be removed in favour of something likelockdep_assert_held().The latter only emits code then built with lockdep enabled and it checks we are indeed the owner, not some random other cpu.
Without going into the issue that spin_is_locked() should go into the lockdep category, and we should restructure every user of it to use lockdep instead...
Peter, for the immediate fix (eg. this merge window), can I have your acked-by for this patch?
Thanks,
-- Steve
PATCH v2 2/2 futex: Fix WARN_ON() test for UP
In reply to Steven RostedtFrom: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>
An update of the futex code had a
WARN_ON(!spin_is_locked(q->lock_ptr))
But on UP, spin_is_locked() is always false, and will trigger this warning, and even worse, it will exit the function without doing the necessary work.
Converting this to a WARN_ON_SMP() fixes the problem.
--- kernel/futex.c | 4 ++-- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
kernel/futex.c +2 -2
@@ -785,8 +785,8 @@ static void __unqueue_futex(struct futex_q *q) {struct futex_hash_bucket *hb; -if (WARN_ON (!q->lock_ptr || !spin_is_locked (q->lock_ptr) - ||plist_node_empty (&q->list))) +if (WARN_ON_SMP (!q->lock_ptr || !spin_is_locked (q->lock_ptr)) + ||WARN_ON (plist_node_empty (&q->list)))return ; hb = container_of(q->lock_ptr, struct futex_hash_bucket, lock);
Signature · 1 line
1.7.2.3