Re: BUG: tracer_alloc_buffers returned with preemption imbalance

[Cong Wang]

On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Âstatic inline int rcu_blocking_is_gp(void)
>> > Â{
>> > Â Â Â Â might_sleep(); Â/* Check for RCU read-side critical section. */
>> > + Â Â Â preempt_disable();
>> > Â Â Â Â return num_online_cpus() <= 1;
>> > + Â Â Â preempt_enable();
>> > Â}
>>
>> Thank you! ÂI have no idea how a preempt_disable() causes that badness
>> to happen, but this commit is not yet critically important, so I will
>> drop it.
>
> preempt_enable() becomes dead code because of the return statement?
> I wonder why gcc didn't issue a warning (or I failed to catch it)...
>

gcc has an option -Wunreachable-code, but we don't enable it
when building kernel, nor it will be enabled with -Wall. If we enable it,
we will have many false-positives as we have lots of debugging code
which is not reachable unless we enable some debugging option.

However, when I test it manually with the following code:

~% cat /tmp/unreachable.c
int main(void)
{
	int a = 0;
	a++;
	return ++a;
	a++;
}
~% gcc -Wunreachable-code -O0 -c /tmp/unreachable.c

gcc still doesn't give me any warning for the last line of the code,
gcc optimizes it out silently, I am wondering if this is a gcc bug.
--
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/