lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Nov]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: contention on profile_lock
Date
On Thursday, November 4, 2004 12:12 pm, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 11:56:23AM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > ..but since I haven't heard from Dipankar, here's a patch that removes
> > the profile_hook notifier list altogether in favor of a simple flag that
> > controls whether or not to call the oprofile timer routine directly.
> > Does it look ok?
>
> This looks reasonable to me.

John pointed out that this breaks modules. Would registering and
unregistering a function pointer thus be module safe? Dipankar, hopefully
you have something better?

static int timer_start(void)
{
/* Setup the callback pointer */
oprofile_timer_notify = oprofile_timer;
return 0;
}


static void timer_stop(void)
{
/* Tear down the callback pointer after sync_kernel */
synchronize_kernel();
oprofile_timer_notify = NULL;
}

Thanks,
Jesse
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:07    [W:0.059 / U:0.308 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site