Re: Random panic in load_balance() with 3.16-rc
- To: Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@trippelsdorf.de>
- Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>, Michel Dänzer <michel@daenzer.net>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Debian GCC Maintainers <debian-gcc@lists.debian.org>, Debian Kernel Team <debian-kernel@lists.debian.org>
- Subject: Re: Random panic in load_balance() with 3.16-rc
- From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
- Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 15:55:03 -0400
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20140726195503.GJ6725@thunk.org>
- Mail-followup-to: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>, Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@trippelsdorf.de>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>, Michel Dänzer <michel@daenzer.net>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Debian GCC Maintainers <debian-gcc@lists.debian.org>, Debian Kernel Team <debian-kernel@lists.debian.org>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20140726193557.GA21842@x4>
- References: <CA+55aFyM1wqTLK0m4GQJ28f=z0iZE87=xk+1z-vm+PH1_d8nKw@mail.gmail.com> <53D064C7.5050807@daenzer.net> <CA+55aFyJhqiPv0kQ+51=Ei-zaAO+0JszxtnEyx-Gbto3SE00xw@mail.gmail.com> <[🔎] 53D1B1EF.7030603@daenzer.net> <[🔎] 20140725035527.GA30108@pg-vmw-gw1> <[🔎] 20140725140237.GB32669@home.goodmis.org> <[🔎] CA+55aFzOoJzqJ=4RVPEBfscA8oRdr5Nv7fKx9aXYw2+frkuhwA@mail.gmail.com> <[🔎] CA+55aFyHU4Gwk6ASTuOgh3eFPshkgy1s5zc4p7f01DwrYddFOw@mail.gmail.com> <[🔎] CA+55aFxaXPqyDJv-SNu6Giy3eKCu_SY1wof1NaNnPTbtF9RbXQ@mail.gmail.com> <[🔎] 20140726193557.GA21842@x4>
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 09:35:57PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
>
> But fortunately the workaround for the new inode.c bug is the same as
> for the original bug: -fno-var-tracking-assignments.
>
> It would make sense to enabled it unconditionally for all debug
> configurations for now.
What's the downside of enabling this unconditionally on a compiler
with the bug fixed? I assume a certain amount of optimization will
lost, but is it significant/measurable?
- Ted
Reply to: