Re: [PATCH] BUG(): sched.c: Line 944

From: Robert Love (
Date: Mon Sep 16 2002 - 16:14:56 EST

On Mon, 2002-09-16 at 15:01, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> Would it not be a lot better to just mask off PREEMPT_ACTIVE() instead of
> checking for it explicitly.
> The in_interrupt() etc stuff already effectively do this by masking off
> the HARDIRQ_MASK etc. I would prefer a patch to hardirq.h that just adds a
> #define to make preempt_count() not contain PREEMPT_ACTIVE - and make the
> PREEMPT_ACTIVE checks be a totally separate check (logic: it's not a
> count, so it shouldn't show up in preempt_count())

I liked this idea, and was working on implementing it when I ran into a
few roadblocks. Your ideas are welcome.

First, "preempt_count()" is used as an l-value in a lot of places, i.e.
look at all the "preempt_count() += foo" in the IRQ code. We cannot
mask things out of it.

Thus, I then looked into doing a separate function for the raw value,
say an "atomic_count()" ... the code just looked ugly mixing
"atomic_count()" and "preempt_count()" for no apparent reason.

Third, PREEMPT_ACTIVE actually _is_ part of the count. It helps assure
us a task is not preempted repeatedly. If we did not have it, we would
have to bump preempt_count on preemption. So we still need it in the

Simplest solution is to:

        #define in_atomic() \
                (preempt_count() & ~PREEMPT_ACTIVE) != kernel_locked())

although I still dislike the masking just to make the schedule()
code-path cleaner.

Oh, and there is another problem: printk() from schedule() implicitly
calls wake_up(). My machine dies even with just a printk() and not a
BUG()... I suspect there may be some SMP issue in that whole mess too,
because setting oops_in_progress prior did not help.


        Robert Love

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 23 2002 - 22:00:17 EST