[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150205183412.GI5370@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 10:34:12 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, sedat.dilek@...il.com,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
linux-next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen@...ux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 4
On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 10:11:31AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 02/05/2015 10:08 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > --- a/include/trace/events/tlb.h
> > +++ b/include/trace/events/tlb.h
> > @@ -13,11 +13,13 @@
> > { TLB_LOCAL_SHOOTDOWN, "local shootdown" }, \
> > { TLB_LOCAL_MM_SHOOTDOWN, "local mm shootdown" }
> >
> > -TRACE_EVENT(tlb_flush,
> > +TRACE_EVENT_CONDITION(tlb_flush,
> >
> > TP_PROTO(int reason, unsigned long pages),
> > TP_ARGS(reason, pages),
> >
> > + TP_CONDITION(cpu_online(smp_processor_id())),
>
> That's a pretty reasonable fix, although it would be nice if the
> debugging was easier to hit.
Looks very good to me!
Unless someone else speaks up, I will carry this patch.
> Did I actually need to be
> onlining/offlining CPUs to hit the splat that Sedat was reporting?
Yep, you do need to offline at least one CPU to hit that splat.
Thanx, Paul
--
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