[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0811180931270.15003@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:32:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: ftrace: preemptoff selftest not working
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> > > Hence the trace buffer will be empty. The patch below makes the
> > > selftests working for me, since then they run in preemptible
> > > context. But it is ugly and I'm not proposing it for upstream ;)
> > >
> > > Just wanted to make you aware that there is a bug.
> >
> > Yep, this might be a better answer than what I put into linux-tip
> > (and my git repo).
> >
> > See:
> >
> > ftrace: force pass of preemptoff selftest
> >
> > The cause of the bug was the conversion of the BKL back to a
> > spinlock, and making it non preempt. The initcall code is called
> > with the BKL applied which now means it can not preempt. This breaks
> > the preempt tracer selftest.
> >
> > My solution was to just force a pass if this is detected. Perhaps
> > moving the test might be better.
>
> it would be better to just drop the BKL in that selftest. (or in all
> selftests - an elevated preempt count will skew a number of things)
I have no problem with that, but does the BKL play any role for being
held? I have no idea why it is taken in boot up, so I'm hestiant to touch
it.
-- Steve
--
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