Jann Horn <[email protected]> wrote: > Does this mean that refcount_read() isn't sufficient for what you want > to do with tracing (because for some reason you actually need to know > the values atomically at the time of increment/decrement)?
Correct. There's a gap and if an interrupt or something occurs, it's sufficiently big for the refcount trace to go weird. I've seen it in afs/rxrpc where the incoming network packets that are part of the rxrpc call flow disrupt the refcounts noted in trace lines. David
