[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48296C96.8060000@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 12:25:26 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To: Gianni Tedesco <gxt@...nott.ac.uk>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
arges@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Maynard Johnson <maynardj@...ibm.com>,
Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, oprofile-list@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Mike Travis <travis@....com>
Subject: Re: oprofile BUG() in current kernel.
Gianni Tedesco a écrit :
>
>
> Nope, exact same bad paging request in kernel mode... probably the bug
> is something deep in oprofile then?
>
Hum... Are you using oprofile as a module or statically included in kernel ?
Current module loader only allocates percpu room by examining
".data.percpu" section and should be augmented to also look at
".data.percpu.shared_aligned"
Or, change DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED() for modules (to use
".data.percpu" only)
Anyway, with the per_cpu conversion of cpu_buffer, we dont need to
request cache_line alignment anymore
[PATCH] oprofile: Dont request cache line alignment for cpu_buffer
Alignment was previously requested because cpu_buffer was an [NR_CPUS]
array, to avoid cache line sharing between CPUS.
After commit 608dfddd845da5ab6accef70154c8910529699f7 (
oprofile: change cpu_buffer from array to per_cpu variable ),
we dont need to force an alignement anymore since cpu_buffer sits in
per_cpu zone.
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
View attachment "oprofile.patch" of type "text/plain" (823 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists