lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Feb]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4] lockdep: check that no locks held at freeze time
From
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 16:28:07 -0800
> Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@chromium.org> wrote:
>
>> > Backtraces aren't *that* bad. We'll easily be able to tell which of
>> > the two callsites triggered the trace.
>> >
>>
>> Let's say there was a try_to_freeze() that got inlined indirectly
>> (multiple levels of inline) into do_exit. Wouldn't the backtraces for
>> the regular exit check and the try_to_freeze check be identical except
>> for the offset (do_exit+0x45 versus do_exit+0x88)? So unless you had
>> an object file you wouldn't know which check you hit.
>
> Mutter. Spose so. Vaguely possible. Yes, if we want to avoid a
> wont-happen, use __FILE__ and __LINE__. Or, probably more sanely,
> __func__.
>

Fair enough. I'll avoid using a macro unless/until its actually needed.

Regards,
Mandeep

> Or uninline try_to_freeze(). If anything's calling that at high
> frequency, we have a problem. And given the number of callsites,
> getting it into icache might result in a faster kernel...
>
> (Someone needs to teach __might_sleep() about __ratelimit())


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-02-21 05:01    [W:0.108 / U:0.100 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site