[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0908261044071.23885@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 10:44:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
cc: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Hendrik Brueckner <brueckner@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
jiayingz@...gle.com, mbligh@...gle.com, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/12] add trace events for each syscall entry/exit
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >
> > All kernel threads have a NULL t->mm. Since do_fork is called by kthreadd
> > and not by kthread_create, the caller of do_fork will also have a
> > t->mm = NULL.
> >
> > -- Steve
> >
>
> Yeah, that's the case with kthread_create() creation fashion,
> but what if you create a kernel thread using the low level
> kernel_thread() directly (ie: without relaying on kthreadd queue)?
>
> Especially in Heiko example, it seems to be a duplication of user
> task.
>
> I wonder what obvious think I'm missing here...
The obvious is that those calls are buggy ;-)
-- 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