[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1219154869.10800.386.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:07:48 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>, mingo@...e.hu,
tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RT 2/2] ftrace: fix elevated preempt_count in
wakeup-tracer
On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 09:45 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> > >
> > > Is preempt_count > 1 at all times here?
> > >
> > > If not, it might drop to 0 and any interrupt might cause preemption -
> > > and its not obvious to me that that is actually correct.
> > >
> > According to Steve, we are already in an interrupt-disabled section here, but
> > I will defer to him. He suggested I try this over an IRC conversation when I
> > noticed a strange wakeup trace, and it seems to have solved the problem.
>
> Exactly.
>
> Peter,
>
> We disable preemption, do a per_cpu check, if we are not nested we grab
> disable interrupts and grab the spin lock.
>
> The issue that Gregory brought up, was that the tracer would always show
> that preemption was disabled, when it really wasn't. It was recording the
> preempt disabled that the trace function itself made. The answer was
> simply to do as Greg did, and enable preemption (but interrupts are
> still disabled), call the function tracer, then disable preemption again
> (to match the outside preemption enabling.
Ok good.
--
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