[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1274464380.26328.3992.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 13:53:00 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] perf, trace: Remove IRQ-disable from
perf/tracepoint interaction
On Fri, 2010-05-21 at 13:43 -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> writes:
>
> > [...]
> > @@ -799,13 +799,10 @@ perf_trace_templ_##call(struct ftrace_ev
> > static notrace void perf_trace_##call(proto) \
> > { \
> > struct ftrace_event_call *event_call = &event_##call; \
> > - struct pt_regs *__regs = &get_cpu_var(perf_trace_regs); \
> > - \
> > - perf_fetch_caller_regs(__regs, 1); \
> > - \
> > - perf_trace_templ_##template(event_call, __regs, args); \
> > + struct pt_regs __regs; \
> > \
> > - put_cpu_var(perf_trace_regs); \
> > + perf_fetch_caller_regs(&__regs, 1); \
> > + perf_trace_templ_##template(event_call, &__regs, args); \
> > }
> > [...]
>
> To what extent are you worried about something the size of struct
> pt_regs being auto/stack allocated?
Isn't pt_regs already allocated on the stack when interrupted?
-- 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