lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH RT 2/2] ftrace: fix elevated preempt_count in wakeup-tracer
From
Date
On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 09:45 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> > >
> > > Is preempt_count > 1 at all times here?
> > >
> > > If not, it might drop to 0 and any interrupt might cause preemption -
> > > and its not obvious to me that that is actually correct.
> > >
> > According to Steve, we are already in an interrupt-disabled section here, but
> > I will defer to him. He suggested I try this over an IRC conversation when I
> > noticed a strange wakeup trace, and it seems to have solved the problem.
>
> Exactly.
>
> Peter,
>
> We disable preemption, do a per_cpu check, if we are not nested we grab
> disable interrupts and grab the spin lock.
>
> The issue that Gregory brought up, was that the tracer would always show
> that preemption was disabled, when it really wasn't. It was recording the
> preempt disabled that the trace function itself made. The answer was
> simply to do as Greg did, and enable preemption (but interrupts are
> still disabled), call the function tracer, then disable preemption again
> (to match the outside preemption enabling.

Ok good.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-08-19 16:11    [W:0.036 / U:21.772 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site