[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200608231337.48941.ak@suse.de>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:37:48 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To: Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
Andrey Savochkin <saw@...ru>, devel@...nvz.org,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
Rohit Seth <rohitseth@...gle.com>,
Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] BC: beancounters core (API)
On Wednesday 23 August 2006 13:03, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_BEANCOUNTERS
> +extern struct hlist_head bc_hash[];
> +extern spinlock_t bc_hash_lock;
I wonder who pokes into that hash from other files? Looks a bit dangerous.
> +void __put_beancounter(struct beancounter *bc);
> +static inline void put_beancounter(struct beancounter *bc)
> +{
> + __put_beancounter(bc);
> +}
The wrapper seems pointless too.
The file could use a overview comment what the various counter
types actually are.
> + bc_print_id(bc, uid, sizeof(uid));
> + printk(KERN_WARNING "BC %s %s warning: %s "
Doesn't this need some rate limiting? Or can it be only triggered
by code bugs?
> + bc = &default_beancounter;
> + memset(bc, 0, sizeof(default_beancounter));
You don't trust the BSS to be zero? @)
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists