Re: [PATCH 05/48] percpu: Add preemption checks to __this_cpu ops

2014-03-05 Thread Andrew Morton
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 21:27:14 -0600 (CST) Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > +notrace void __this_cpu_preempt_check(const char *op) > > > +{ > > > + char text[40]; > > > + > > > + snprintf(text, sizeof(text), "__this_cpu_%s()", op); > > > + check_preemption_disabled(text); > > > +} > > > > I'd like

Re: [PATCH 05/48] percpu: Add preemption checks to __this_cpu ops

2014-03-05 Thread Andrew Morton
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 21:27:14 -0600 (CST) Christoph Lameter c...@linux.com wrote: +notrace void __this_cpu_preempt_check(const char *op) +{ + char text[40]; + + snprintf(text, sizeof(text), __this_cpu_%s(), op); + check_preemption_disabled(text); +} I'd like to see a

Re: [PATCH 05/48] percpu: Add preemption checks to __this_cpu ops

2014-03-04 Thread Christoph Lameter
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014, Andrew Morton wrote: > > print_symbol("caller is %s\n", (long)__builtin_return_address(0)); > > dump_stack(); > > I wonder if there's any point in printing __builtin_return_address. > Doesn't dump_stack() tell us the same thing? Yes it does. However, it was there

Re: [PATCH 05/48] percpu: Add preemption checks to __this_cpu ops

2014-03-04 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 14:27:27 -0800 Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:18:46 -0600 Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > [Patch depends on another patch in this series that introduces raw_cpu_ops] > > > > We define a check function in order to avoid trouble with the > > include files. Then

Re: [PATCH 05/48] percpu: Add preemption checks to __this_cpu ops

2014-03-04 Thread Andrew Morton
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:18:46 -0600 Christoph Lameter wrote: > [Patch depends on another patch in this series that introduces raw_cpu_ops] > > We define a check function in order to avoid trouble with the > include files. Then the higher level __this_cpu macros are > modified to invoke the

Re: [PATCH 05/48] percpu: Add preemption checks to __this_cpu ops

2014-03-04 Thread Andrew Morton
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:18:46 -0600 Christoph Lameter c...@linux.com wrote: [Patch depends on another patch in this series that introduces raw_cpu_ops] We define a check function in order to avoid trouble with the include files. Then the higher level __this_cpu macros are modified to invoke

Re: [PATCH 05/48] percpu: Add preemption checks to __this_cpu ops

2014-03-04 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 14:27:27 -0800 Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org wrote: On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:18:46 -0600 Christoph Lameter c...@linux.com wrote: [Patch depends on another patch in this series that introduces raw_cpu_ops] We define a check function in order to avoid trouble

Re: [PATCH 05/48] percpu: Add preemption checks to __this_cpu ops

2014-03-04 Thread Christoph Lameter
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014, Andrew Morton wrote: print_symbol(caller is %s\n, (long)__builtin_return_address(0)); dump_stack(); I wonder if there's any point in printing __builtin_return_address. Doesn't dump_stack() tell us the same thing? Yes it does. However, it was there before and

[PATCH 05/48] percpu: Add preemption checks to __this_cpu ops

2014-02-14 Thread Christoph Lameter
[Patch depends on another patch in this series that introduces raw_cpu_ops] We define a check function in order to avoid trouble with the include files. Then the higher level __this_cpu macros are modified to invoke the preemption check. Acked-by: Ingo Molnar Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter

[PATCH 05/48] percpu: Add preemption checks to __this_cpu ops

2014-02-14 Thread Christoph Lameter
[Patch depends on another patch in this series that introduces raw_cpu_ops] We define a check function in order to avoid trouble with the include files. Then the higher level __this_cpu macros are modified to invoke the preemption check. Acked-by: Ingo Molnar mi...@kernel.org Signed-off-by: