Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753154AbZAKH6K (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jan 2009 02:58:10 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751441AbZAKH5y (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jan 2009 02:57:54 -0500 Received: from 8bytes.org ([88.198.83.132]:38436 "EHLO 8bytes.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751435AbZAKH5x (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jan 2009 02:57:53 -0500 Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 08:57:52 +0100 From: Joerg Roedel To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Joerg Roedel , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, mingo@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/16] dma-debug: add core checking functions Message-ID: <20090111075752.GI9466@8bytes.org> References: <1231517970-20288-1-git-send-email-joerg.roedel@amd.com> <1231517970-20288-9-git-send-email-joerg.roedel@amd.com> <20090110231127.GK17917@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090110231127.GK17917@elte.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1510 Lines: 37 On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 12:11:27AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Joerg Roedel wrote: > > > +#define err_printk(dev, format, arg...) do { \ > > + error_count += 1; \ > > + if (show_all_errors || show_num_errors > 0) { \ > > + WARN(1, "%s %s: " format, \ > > + dev_driver_string(dev), \ > > + dev_name(dev) , ## arg); \ > > + } \ > > + if (!show_all_errors && show_num_errors > 0) \ > > + show_num_errors -= 1; \ > > Note that the arithmetics here is SMP-unsafe: we only hold the hash bucket > so if two errors hit at once on two CPUs then the error tracking variables > can be accessed at once. > > I'd suggest a simple global lock for this error case (taken inside the > hash bucket lock), to be on the safe side. > > Also, please dont use a macro for this - printk details can be passed in > to helper inlines/functions too. Yeah, this is not SMP-safe, I know. But debugfs does not support atomic_t so I made the variables u32. But at least a race condition has not a too bad impact. What may habben is that error_count misses a error or the show_num_errors become negative. But if we really want to avoid this I think its better to add atomic_t support to debugfs. What do you think? Joerg -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/