[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130415101159.GA25095@localhost.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 11:11:59 +0100
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Christopher Covington <cov@...eaurora.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: Fix task tracing
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 01:33:34PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote:
> For accurate accounting pass contextidr_thread_switch the prev
> task pointer, since cpu_switch_to has at that point changed the
> the stack pointer.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christopher Covington <cov@...eaurora.org>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/process.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
> index 0337cdb..a49b25a 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
> @@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ struct task_struct *__switch_to(struct task_struct *prev,
> /* the actual thread switch */
> last = cpu_switch_to(prev, next);
>
> - contextidr_thread_switch(next);
> + contextidr_thread_switch(prev);
The original code was indeed wrong but using prev isn't any better. For
a newly created thread, prev is probably 0 (if it's in a register,
cpu_context has been zeroed by copy_thread()) or some random stack
value.
So we either use current or move the call before cpu_switch_to() (I
would go for the former).
--
Catalin
--
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