[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1287658862.16971.569.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 07:01:02 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
2nddept-manager@....hitachi.co.jp
Subject: Re: [PATCH][GIT PULL] tracing: Fix compile issue for
trace_sched_wakeup.c
On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 09:22 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 11:58 +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>
> > It seems there can be a bug in stop_machine() routine under
> > heavy use. usually that is called just once at a time, but jump
> > label and optprobe might call it heavily (thousands times?).
> > So some racy situation can be happen easily.
>
> There are people doing hotplug stress testing, that too results in heavy
> stop_machine usage.
But with hotplug, isn't there a bit more time between stop machine
calls? That is, you need to do a bit of work to bring down or up a CPU,
and that will slow down the number of stop machine calls together.
Here, we do a simple change and call stop machine() several times.
Although, I agree, I do not think the bug is in stop machine itself, but
perhaps the way we are using it might have some niche anomaly that we
are hitting.
-- 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