[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1r64nqd6v.fsf@frodo.ebiederm.org>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 23:43:52 -0800
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
containers@...ts.osdl.org,
Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ftrace: add ability to only trace swapper tasks
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> writes:
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> Right. I simply meant most of the
>> if (likely(p->pid)) conditional except for the counts is pretty much a don't
>> care. Keeping the idle tasks off of the process list and out of the counts
>> is useful.
>>
>> For this particular case what problem did you see with calling attach_pid
>> with PIDTYPE_PID on init_struct_pid?
>
> On boot up, the CPU 0 idle task is attached to init_struct_pid, and not
> the others. If you do a "attach_pid" on the next idle task that is created,
> it will become the attched process, bumping off CPU 0's idle task from the
> init_struct_pid.
It should form a linked list. For other pid types we don't have a problem.
> When doing the code you suggested, I end up with only marking the last
> idle task to be created.
Odd. It is all a linked list through the task structures.
I'm guessing the initialization isn't quite right.
Weird.
Eric
--
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