![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread Complete thread (EXPERIMENTAL) |
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? | ||||||||||
![]() | |||||||||||
| Last update: 2008-05-08 21:29 [W:0.109 / U:0.010 seconds] ©2003-2005 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||