Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:04:17 -0400 (EDT) | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/6] ftrace: port to the new ring_buffer |
| |
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: > > > very nice! I'd expect breakages and complications too so i > > restructured tip/tracing/* a bit: firstly i created a tip/tracing/core > > append-only merge branch which collects all the known-robust bits. > > Then i created a new branch for your new generic ring-buffer feature: > > tip/tracing/ring-buffer, and applied your patches. I've started > > testing it. > > -tip testing found that tip/tracing/ring-buffer causes a new lockdep > splat: > > [ 0.000000] Linux version 2.6.27-rc8-tip-00915-g8cb18a9-dirty (mingo@dione) > (gcc version 4.2.3) #37501 SMP Tue Sep 30 10:10:10 CEST 2008 > [...] > [ 0.268001] calling tracer_alloc_buffers+0x0/0x1e5 @ 1 > [ 0.270983] ------------[ cut here ]------------ > [ 0.271100] WARNING: at kernel/lockdep.c:2880 check_flags+0x63/0x179() > [ 0.271219] Modules linked in: > [ 0.271356] Pid: 1, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.27-rc8-tip-00915-g8cb18a9-dirty #37501 > [ 0.271563] Call Trace: > [ 0.271678] [<ffffffff80271d2b>] warn_on_slowpath+0x5d/0x84 > [ 0.271797] [<ffffffff80295973>] ? __lock_acquire+0xba4/0xbc5 > [ 0.271916] [<ffffffff8029266d>] ? __raw_spin_is_locked+0x17/0x1a > [ 0.272001] [<ffffffff802929cc>] ? graph_unlock+0x79/0x7e > [ 0.272001] [<ffffffff8029449f>] ? mark_lock+0x1c/0x361 > [ 0.272001] [<ffffffff8029483a>] ? mark_held_locks+0x56/0x71 > [ 0.272001] [<ffffffff802cbb77>] ? time_hardirqs_off+0x12/0x26 > [ 0.272001] [<ffffffff802934f1>] ? trace_hardirqs_off_caller+0x21/0xc2
I don't even need to look at the configs. There's places I still used the "raw_local_irq_save" and that is what in the past has caused this issue. I'll go and remove those.
-- Steve
| |