[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090223173429.GJ5961@nowhere>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:34:30 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing/ftrace: add missing wake-up on some callsites
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:13:36PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2009, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 11:51:30AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 23 Feb 2009, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps we could add these callsites back, but we would need to update
> > > > > trace_wake_up.
> > > > >
> > > > > Have trace_wake_up set a flag instead, and add a tracepoint around the
> > > > > scheduler (outside the grabbing of runqueue locks), that will have a
> > > > > callback to the tracing code. That call back can perform the wakeups.
> > > > >
> > > > > How does that sound?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That sounds good but only for these particular tracers I guess.
> > >
> > > OK, what about making a trace_delay_wake_up()?
> >
> >
> > Which would send a delayed work to wake up?
>
> No, I was thinking that trace_delay_wake_up() would be called by these
> dangerous call sites. Then a per_cpu flag could be set. We could have a
> trace point in the scheduler code that is outside holding a runqueue lock,
> and this trace point would call a trace function that will clear the per
> cpu flag, and then call trace_wake_up().
>
Oh yes, sounds nice!
> -- 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