[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1333152806.23924.196.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 20:13:26 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: syscall_regfunc() && TIF_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT
On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 22:15 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > A lot of places test ->mm for kernel threads.
>
> And this is wrong, use_mm() can set ->mm != NULL. This is the common
> mistake.
>
> > Just search for ->mm in
> > kernel/sched/core.c
>
> Probably normalize_rt_tasks() and __sched_setscheduler() should be fixed.
Heh, the __sched_setscheduler() usage is from me. But I'm not sure we
had an alternative back in 2005.
> But I don't really understand why do you think that "clear" is more
> important.
They are both important. But as I tend to consider performance when
tracing is off as critical, I'm more concerned about that. But both must
be fixed, because not reporting traces can confuse a developer.
> Sure, the wrong TIF_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT triggers the slow
> path unnecessary, but this is more or less harmless. But if we do
> not set the task obviously won't report trace_sys*, this looks like
> a bug even if nothing bad can happen.
Agreed, both are a bug and both should be fixed.
Thanks,
-- 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