* Prarit Bhargava <pra...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 08/21/2015 02:51 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Prarit Bhargava <pra...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >> This issue was noticed while debugging a CPU hotplug issue. On x86
> >> with (NR_CPUS > 1) the cpu_online() define is cpumask_test_cpu().
> >> cpumask_test_cpu() should return 1 if the cpu is set in cpumask and
> >> 0 otherwise.
> >>
> >> However, cpumask_test_cpu() returns -1 if the cpu in the cpumask is
> >> set and 0 otherwise. This happens because cpumask_test_cpu() calls
> >> test_bit() which is a define that will call variable_test_bit().
> >>
> >> variable_test_bit() calls the assembler instruction sbb (Subtract
> >> with Borrow, " Subtracts the source from the destination, and subtracts 1
> >> extra if the Carry Flag is set. Results are returned in "dest".)
> >>
> >> A bit match results in -1 being returned from variable_test_bit() if a
> >> match occurs, not 1 as the function is supposed to. This can be easily
> >> resolved by adding a "!!" to force 0 or 1 as a return.
> >>
> >> It looks like the code never does, for example, (test_bit() == 1) so this
> >> change should not have any impact.
> >>
> >> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de>
> >> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mi...@redhat.com>
> >> Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <h...@zytor.com>
> >> Cc: x...@kernel.org
> >> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> >> Signed-off-by: Prarit Bhargava <pra...@redhat.com>
> >> ---
> >> arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h | 2 +-
> >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
> >> index cfe3b95..a87a5fb 100644
> >> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
> >> @@ -320,7 +320,7 @@ static inline int variable_test_bit(long nr, volatile
> >> const unsigned long *addr)
> >> : "=r" (oldbit)
> >> : "m" (*(unsigned long *)addr), "Ir" (nr));
> >>
> >> - return oldbit;
> >> + return !!oldbit;
> >> }
> >>
> >> #if 0 /* Fool kernel-doc since it doesn't do macros yet */
> >
> > Ok, I think this is a good fix to improve the robustness of this primitive,
> > unless
> > someone objects.
> >
> > I tried to find the CPU hotplug code that broke with cpu_online() returning
> > -1 but
> > failed - all current mainline usage sites seem to be testing for nonzero in
> > one
> > way or another. Could you please point it out?
>
> I'm sorry Ingo, I think my description may have confused you. I was
> debugging a
> cpu hotplug issue[1] and did
>
> printk("cpu %d cpu online status %d\n", cpu, cpu_online(cpu));
>
> as a debug printk. This printed out
>
> cpu 3 cpu online status -1
>
> which was really confusing. That lead me down the rabbit hole of looking at
> the
> sbb assembler instruction in variable_test_bit() to figure out why I was
> seeing -1.
Ok, fair enough!
Still worth fixing IMHO.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
