[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080513082313.cbbe81af.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 08:23:13 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
Cc: Gianni Tedesco <gxt@...nott.ac.uk>, 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>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: oprofile BUG() in current kernel.
On Tue, 13 May 2008 12:25:26 +0200 Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com> wrote:
> 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)
Well that's a little landmine. Seems that this was the first attempt to
use DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED from within a module.
> 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
Thanks. Silly me for looking at the nearly-one-year-old
DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED and assuming that it worked :(
--
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