[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1518064452.29966.4.camel@tzanussi-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 22:34:12 -0600
From: Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@...ux.intel.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, mhiramat@...nel.org, namhyung@...nel.org,
vedang.patel@...el.com, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
joel.opensrc@...il.com, joelaf@...gle.com,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, baohong.liu@...el.com,
rajvi.jingar@...el.com, julia@...com, fengguang.wu@...el.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 35/37] tracing: Increase trace_recursive_lock() limit
for synthetic events
Hi Steve,
On Wed, 2018-02-07 at 20:55 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 20:52:09 -0600
> Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> > static __always_inline int
> > trace_recursive_lock(struct ring_buffer_per_cpu *cpu_buffer)
> > {
> > - if (cpu_buffer->current_context >= 4)
> > + if (cpu_buffer->current_context >= 6)
>
> I can't apply this patch because the new context counting broke tracing
> suspend and resume because it depended on the context recursive locking.
>
> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180116020051.776011914@goodmis.org
>
> I added the attached two patches which appear to do the job.
>
> Let me know what you think.
>
Yeah, these look good and seem to do the trick - I did some quick
testing and didn't see any problems.
Thanks,
Tom
Powered by blists - more mailing lists