[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170112161643.GB3144@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 17:16:43 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, walken@...gle.com,
boqun.feng@...il.com, kirill@...temov.name,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
npiggin@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 05/15] lockdep: Make check_prev_add can use a separate
stack_trace
On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 02:12:01PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> check_prev_add() saves a stack trace of the current. But crossrelease
> feature needs to use a separate stack trace of another context in
> check_prev_add(). So make it use a separate stack trace instead of one
> of the current.
>
So I was thinking, can't we make check_prevs_add() create the stack
trace unconditionally but record if we used it or not, and then return
the entries when unused. All that is serialized by graph_lock anyway and
that way we already pass a stack into check_prev_add() so we can easily
pass in a different one.
I think that removes a bunch of tricky and avoids all the new tricky.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists