lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [May]   [8]   [last100]   RSS-feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Complete thread (EXPERIMENTAL)
/
DateThu, 8 May 2008 12:25:14 -0700
FromAndrew Morton <>
SubjectRe: [PATCH -mm][v2] ratelimit rewrite
Digg This
On Tue, 6 May 2008 10:25:58 +0800
Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@gmail.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?




\
ISP Services
Valid XHTML 1.0!\ /
Valid CSS! Last update: 2008-05-08 21:29    [W:0.109 / U:0.010 seconds]
©2003-2005 Jasper Spaans