Re: [PATCH v4 05/15] lockdep: Make check_prev_add can use a separate stack_trace

2017-01-18 Thread Byungchul Park
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 04:10:53PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 11:04:32AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 04:54:31PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 07:11:43PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > > > > What do you think about

Re: [PATCH v4 05/15] lockdep: Make check_prev_add can use a separate stack_trace

2017-01-18 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 11:04:32AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 04:54:31PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 07:11:43PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > > > What do you think about the following patches doing it? > > > > I was more thinking about some

Re: [PATCH v4 05/15] lockdep: Make check_prev_add can use a separate stack_trace

2017-01-17 Thread Byungchul Park
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 04:54:31PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 07:11:43PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > > What do you think about the following patches doing it? > > I was more thinking about something like so... > > Also, I think I want to muck with struct stack_trace

Re: [PATCH v4 05/15] lockdep: Make check_prev_add can use a separate stack_trace

2017-01-17 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 07:11:43PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > What do you think about the following patches doing it? I was more thinking about something like so... Also, I think I want to muck with struct stack_trace; the members: max_nr_entries and skip are input arguments to save_stack_tra

Re: [PATCH v4 05/15] lockdep: Make check_prev_add can use a separate stack_trace

2017-01-13 Thread Byungchul Park
What do you think about the following patches doing it?

Re: [PATCH v4 05/15] lockdep: Make check_prev_add can use a separate stack_trace

2017-01-12 Thread Byungchul Park
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 05:16:43PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 02:12:01PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > > check_prev_add() saves a stack trace of the current. But crossrelease > > feature needs to use a separate stack trace of another context in > > check_prev_add(). So

Re: [PATCH v4 05/15] lockdep: Make check_prev_add can use a separate stack_trace

2017-01-12 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 02:12:01PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > check_prev_add() saves a stack trace of the current. But crossrelease > feature needs to use a separate stack trace of another context in > check_prev_add(). So make it use a separate stack trace instead of one > of the current. >