[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46A8BAEC.9070507@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:17:00 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
CC: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
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)
Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> 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?
>
https://ols2006.108.redhat.com/2007/Reprints/rostedt-Reprint.pdf
And his slides too, haven't checked if they are already only at the OLS
site.
- Arnaldo
-
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