On Friday 08 May 2015 07:48 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 08 May 2015 10:07:15 +0530
> Shreyas B Prabhu wrote:
>
>
>> Hi Steve,
>> Do you have any other suggestions for this patchset or will you take
>> them as is?
>
> I'm fine with them (add my Acked-by), but I don't usually pull in
>
On Fri, 08 May 2015 10:07:15 +0530
Shreyas B Prabhu wrote:
> Hi Steve,
> Do you have any other suggestions for this patchset or will you take
> them as is?
I'm fine with them (add my Acked-by), but I don't usually pull in
changes for include/trace/events/*.h files. Those are usually maintained
On Wednesday 29 April 2015 10:38 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:28:38 +0530
> Shreyas B Prabhu wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday 29 April 2015 08:48 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>> On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 20:19:28 +0530
>>> Shreyas B Prabhu wrote:
>>>
IIUC there is no existing
On Thursday 30 April 2015 10:06 AM, Preeti Murthy wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 10:49 PM, Shreyas B Prabhu
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday 29 April 2015 10:38 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
I am not sure if its worth the effort now. It doesn't look like any
other trace point apart from th
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 10:49 PM, Shreyas B Prabhu
wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday 29 April 2015 10:38 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>> I am not sure if its worth the effort now. It doesn't look like any
>>> other trace point apart from the above use case will benefit from it.
>>> Only smbus_write and smbu
On Wednesday 29 April 2015 10:38 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> I am not sure if its worth the effort now. It doesn't look like any
>> other trace point apart from the above use case will benefit from it.
>> Only smbus_write and smbus_reply seem to come close. But even they need
>> separate TP_fast
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:28:38 +0530
Shreyas B Prabhu wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday 29 April 2015 08:48 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 20:19:28 +0530
> > Shreyas B Prabhu wrote:
> >
> >> IIUC there is no existing macro which can both add a condition and
> >> override printk forma
On Wednesday 29 April 2015 08:48 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 20:19:28 +0530
> Shreyas B Prabhu wrote:
>
>> IIUC there is no existing macro which can both add a condition and
>> override printk format, hence the fall back to TRACE_EVENT_CONDITION.
>
> Hmm, want me to send yo
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 20:19:28 +0530
Shreyas B Prabhu wrote:
> IIUC there is no existing macro which can both add a condition and
> override printk format, hence the fall back to TRACE_EVENT_CONDITION.
Hmm, want me to send you a patch that changes that?
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list:
>> -DEFINE_EVENT_PRINT(mm_page, mm_page_pcpu_drain,
>> +TRACE_EVENT_CONDITION(mm_page_pcpu_drain,
>>
>> TP_PROTO(struct page *page, unsigned int order, int migratetype),
>>
>> TP_ARGS(page, order, migratetype),
>>
>> + TP_CONDITION(cpu_online(smp_processor_id())),
>> +
>> +
Ccing Paul,
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:21 PM, Shreyas B. Prabhu
wrote:
> Since tracepoints use RCU for protection, they must not be called on
> offline cpus. trace_mm_page_pcpu_drain can be called on an offline cpu
> in this scenario caught by LOCKDEP:
>
> ===
> [ INF
Since tracepoints use RCU for protection, they must not be called on
offline cpus. trace_mm_page_pcpu_drain can be called on an offline cpu
in this scenario caught by LOCKDEP:
===
[ INFO: suspicious RCU usage. ]
4.1.0-rc1+ #9 Not tainted
12 matches
Mail list logo