[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1313091791.8491.33.camel@twins>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 21:43:11 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Alex Neronskiy <zakmagnus@...omium.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>,
Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...omium.org>,
Alex Neronskiy <zakmagnus@...omium.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] Output stall data in debugfs
zakmagnus seems to bounce, so who am I talking to anyway..
On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 21:35 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> static void show_stall_trace(struct seq_file *f, void *v)
> {
> struct stall *s = f->private;
> int i, idx = ACCESS_ONCE(s->idx);
>
> mutex_lock(&stall_mutex);
>
> raw_spin_lock(&s->lock[idx]);
> seq_printf(f, "stall: %d\n", s->worst);
> for (i = 0; i < s->trace[idx].nr_entries; i++) {
> seq_printf(f, "[<%pK>] %pS\n",
> (void *)s->trace->entries[i],
> (void *)s->trace->entries[i]);
> }
> raw_spin_unlock(&s->lock[idx]);
>
> mutex_unlock(&stall_mutex);
> }
>
>
> Yes its racy on s->worst, but who cares (if you do care you can keep a
> copy in s->delay[idx] or so). Also, it might be better to not do the
> spinlock but simply use an atomic bitop to set an in-use flag, there is
> no reason to disable preemption over the seq_printf() loop.
That also cures another problem you have, a seq_file buffer is only 1
page large, you should be using the seqfile iterator interface and print
one line at a time.. now clearly that won't work with preemption
disabled either.
--
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