Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 13 Feb 2009 00:56:31 -0500 (EST) | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/1] trace: use the more accurate parameter. |
| |
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 07:30:04PM -0500, Wenji Huang wrote: > > > Pass tsk to __update_max_tr instead of current to avoid latent hazard. > > > > > > Impact: clean up > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Wenji Huang <wenji.huang@oracle.com> > > > --- > > > kernel/trace/trace.c | 2 +- > > > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace.c b/kernel/trace/trace.c > > > index 5b1e9a9..c1592f1 100644 > > > --- a/kernel/trace/trace.c > > > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace.c > > > @@ -335,7 +335,7 @@ __update_max_tr(struct trace_array *tr, struct task_struct *tsk, int cpu) > > > data->rt_priority = tsk->rt_priority; > > > > > > /* record this tasks comm */ > > > - tracing_record_cmdline(current); > > > + tracing_record_cmdline(tsk); > > > } > > > > > > Indeed. At this stage, tsk is the next task in the middle of a context > > switch. So I guess current is right, but this is more proper to use tsk. > > Rename it to 'next' then please.
I'm sorry, I missed this comment, and only notice it because of Wenji's latest patches.
For the __update_max_tr used by irqsoff, this is not the case. The update_max_tr is just to make a snapshot of the latest max. The irq/preempt latency tracers do not use the sched switch to record comms, especially since it only cares when a new max happens. There is no concept of a 'next' task.
I think the proper name is 'task'.
-- Steve
| |