On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 05:41:40PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Steven Rostedt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > OK, will see what I can do...
> > >
> > > > On Sat, 2 Feb 2008, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Yep, you have depende
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 05:03:47PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > OK, will see what I can do...
> >
> > > On Sat, 2 Feb 2008, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yep, you have dependencies, so something like the following:
> > > >
> > > > initial
* Steven Rostedt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > OK, will see what I can do...
> >
> > > On Sat, 2 Feb 2008, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yep, you have dependencies, so something like the following:
> > > >
> > > > initial state:
> > > >
> >
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> OK, will see what I can do...
>
> > On Sat, 2 Feb 2008, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > > Yep, you have dependencies, so something like the following:
> > >
> > > initial state:
> > >
> > > struct foo {
> > > int a;
> > > };
> > > struc
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 12:09:00PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> First I want to say, "Thank you", for taking the time to explain this in
> considerable detail. But I still have some minor questions.
>
> (Even though you already convinced me, but I still want full
> understand
Hi Paul,
First I want to say, "Thank you", for taking the time to explain this in
considerable detail. But I still have some minor questions.
(Even though you already convinced me, but I still want full
understanding ;-)
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Yep, you have dependenc
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 08:56:12PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > > > > OK, fair enough. I'll explain it a bit more.
> > > > >
> > > > > How's this:
> > > > >
> > > > > /*
> > > > > * We are entering ops into the mcount_list but another
>
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > OK, fair enough. I'll explain it a bit more.
> > > >
> > > > How's this:
> > > >
> > > > /*
> > > > * We are entering ops into the mcount_list but another
> > > > * CPU might be walking that list. We need to make sure
> > > > * the ops->
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 03:25:00PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 09:09 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > Paul,
> >
> > Peter and I are having a discussion on craziness of archs and memory
> > barriers. You seem to understand crazy archs pretty well, and we would
> > like s
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> well, actually, I disagree. I only set mcount_enabled=1 when I'm about to
> test something. You're right that we want the impact of the test least
> affected, but when we have mcount_enabled=1 we usually also have a
> function that's attached and in tha
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 09:09 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Paul,
>
> Peter and I are having a discussion on craziness of archs and memory
> barriers. You seem to understand crazy archs pretty well, and we would
> like some advice. :-)
>
> See below:
>
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Steven Rostedt wrote
Paul,
Peter and I are having a discussion on craziness of archs and memory
barriers. You seem to understand crazy archs pretty well, and we would
like some advice. :-)
See below:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> >
> > On Tue, 2008-
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> > --- linux-mcount.git.orig/arch/x86/kernel/entry_32.S2008-01-29
> > 16:59:15.0 -0500
> > +++ linux-mcount.git/arch/x86/kernel/entry_32.S 2008-01-29
> > 17:26:18.0 -0500
> > @@ -75,6 +75,31 @@ DF_MASK
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> --- linux-mcount.git.orig/arch/x86/kernel/entry_32.S 2008-01-29
> 16:59:15.0 -0500
> +++ linux-mcount.git/arch/x86/kernel/entry_32.S 2008-01-29
> 17:26:18.0 -0500
> @@ -75,6 +75,31 @@ DF_MASK= 0x0400
> NT_MASK = 0x
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 22:15 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> > +int register_mcount_function(struct mcount_ops *ops)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > +
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&mcount_func_lock, flags);
> > + ops->next = mcount_list;
> >
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 22:15 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> +int register_mcount_function(struct mcount_ops *ops)
> +{
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&mcount_func_lock, flags);
> + ops->next = mcount_list;
> + /* must have next seen before we update the list poi
16 matches
Mail list logo
