[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090325180203.GB25518@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:02:03 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Tim Bird <tim.bird@...sony.com>,
Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5][RFC] tracing: move function profiler data out of
function struct
* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > > The atomic_inc_return protects against NMIs, since this is the only place
> > > the lock is taken.
> >
> > i mean, if this code executes _ni_ an NMI. Or that cannot happen? We
> > trace nmis too, dont we?
>
> Yes, it can execute in an NMI, but we have no issues there. If the
> lock was taken the atomic inc is set. If an NMI comes in, it will
> fail the atomic inc counter test and never try to take the lock.
You are misunderstanding me. Can this bit:
> > + if (!profile_pages->next && alloc_safe)
> > + profile_pages->next = (void *)get_zeroed_page(GFP_ATOMIC);
run in NMI context?
or is alloc_safe false in that case? Even if it's safe it looks
really messy ...
Ingo
--
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