[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080508122514.63482a06.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 12:25:14 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@...il.com>
Cc: paulmck@...ibm.com, joe@...ches.com, davem@...emloft.net,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm][v2] ratelimit rewrite
On Tue, 6 May 2008 10:25:58 +0800
Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@...il.com> wrote:
> static inline void rcu_enter_nohz(void)
> {
> + static DEFINE_RATELIMIT_STATE(rs, 10 * HZ, 1);
> smp_mb(); /* CPUs seeing ++ must see prior RCU read-side crit sects */
> __get_cpu_var(rcu_dyntick_sched).dynticks++;
> - WARN_ON_SECS(__get_cpu_var(rcu_dyntick_sched).dynticks & 0x1, 10);
> + WARN_ON_RATELIMIT(__get_cpu_var(rcu_dyntick_sched).dynticks & 0x1, &rs);
> }
>
> static inline void rcu_exit_nohz(void)
> {
> + static DEFINE_RATELIMIT_STATE(rs, 10 * HZ, 1);
> __get_cpu_var(rcu_dyntick_sched).dynticks++;
> smp_mb(); /* CPUs seeing ++ must see later RCU read-side crit sects */
> - WARN_ON_SECS(!(__get_cpu_var(rcu_dyntick_sched).dynticks & 0x1), 10);
> + WARN_ON_RATELIMIT(!(__get_cpu_var(rcu_dyntick_sched).dynticks & 0x1),
> + &rs);
Why are we altering the RCU code in this patch, btw? It seems fairly
random that we happened to choose these particular WARN_ONs. Do they have
a history of triggering?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists