[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0908181220280.7852@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:28:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
cc: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing, sched: mark preempt_schedule() notrace
On Tue, 18 Aug 2009, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 04:01:57PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> >
> > Current preempt_schedule() is not marked notrace. It may be
> > infinite recursion in __trace_graph_return().
> >
> > preempt_schedule()
> > __trace_graph_return()
> > ftrace_preempt_disable() (!!return false!!)
> > ftrace_preempt_enable()
> > preempt_enable_notrace()
> > preempt_schedule() (need_resched() may be true again)
>
>
>
> It would happen in __trace_graph_return() , when preempt_schedule()
> has finished its job. It's very unlikely the TIF_NEED_RESCHED is
> set just after (because it has just been cleared).
> But why not. In that case, preempt_schedule() is called again but it's
> not a real tracing recursion.
>
> That seems like a normal behaviour actually.
In fact, this is actually something to be traced. I would not add a
notrace to it. This is not saving anything, the trace_graph_return does
not need to worry about stack overflow, since the return code already
freed the stack.
-- 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