[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 19:23:41 +0800
From: DDD <dongdong.deng@...driver.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: dzickus@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [V3 PATCH] x86: avoid calling arch_trigger_all_cpu_backtrace()
at the same time on SMP
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Hm, another thing i noticed is that there's two of these:
>
>> #ifdef ARCH_HAS_NMI_WATCHDOG
>> +/* "in progress" flag of arch_trigger_all_cpu_backtrace */
>> +static unsigned long backtrace_flag;
>> +
>> void arch_trigger_all_cpu_backtrace(void)
>> {
>> int i;
>> + unsigned long flags;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Have to disable irq here, as the
>> + * arch_trigger_all_cpu_backtrace() could be
>> + * triggered by "spin_lock()" with irqs on.
>> + */
>> + local_irq_save(flags);
>
>> +/* "in progress" flag of arch_trigger_all_cpu_backtrace */
>> +static unsigned long backtrace_flag;
>> +
>> void arch_trigger_all_cpu_backtrace(void)
>> {
>> int i;
>> + unsigned long flags;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Have to disable irq here, as the
>> + * arch_trigger_all_cpu_backtrace() could be
>> + * triggered by "spin_lock()" with irqs on.
>> + */
>> + local_irq_save(flags);
>> +
>> + if (test_and_set_bit(0, &backtrace_flag))
>
> A fair amount of code is being duplicated in two places - which is not nice. Lets
> try to create a shared facility instead?
Yep, It is a good idea, I will try to do that. :-)
Dongdong
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo
>
--
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