[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0911191053390.24119@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:05:17 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc: mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
feng.tang@...el.com, Fr??d??ric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:timers/urgent] hrtimer: Fix /proc/timer_list regression
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> i've bisected back to it:
>
> | 887a29f59b93cf54e21814869a4ab6e80b6fa623 is the first bad commit
> | commit 887a29f59b93cf54e21814869a4ab6e80b6fa623
> | Author: Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
> | Date: Thu Sep 3 16:32:53 2009 +0800
> |
> | hrtimer: Fix /proc/timer_list regression
>
> Config attached.
>
> I've removed it from timers/urgent for now.
Come on, this is a patently wrong conclusion.
We call timer_stats_update_stats() which returns on top of the
function due to:
if (likely(!timer_stats_active))
return;
timer_stats_active is 0 during boot and you can only activate it by
writing to /proc/timer_stats which you certainly did not at this
point.
Can you please explain how a call to a function which returns right
away can cause that problem ?
That patch unearthed some other bug and your revert is just papering
over that fact.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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