[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <y0mps2f1asz.fsf@ton.toronto.redhat.com>
Date: 26 Jul 2007 10:47:40 -0400
From: fche@...hat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler)
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc: Ankita Garg <ankita@...ibm.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>, linux@...mer.net,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
RT-Users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [Question] Hooks for scheduler tracing (CFS)
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca> writes:
> [...]
> The problem is also in _stp_print_flush, not *only* in relay code:
> void _stp_print_flush (void)
> ...
> spin_lock(&_stp_print_lock);
> ...
> spin_unlock(&_stp_print_lock);
>
> Those will turn into mutexes with -rt.
Indeed, plus systemtap-generated locking code uses rwlocks,
local_irq_save/restore or preempt_disable, in various places. Could
someone point to a place that spells out what would be more
appropriate way of ensuring atomicity while being compatible with -rt?
- FChE
-
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