additional debugging advice when we hit lockdep BUGs
We occasionally get reports of these BUGs being hit, and the
stack trace doesn't necessarily always tell us what we need to
know about why we are hitting those limits.
If users start attaching /proc/lock_stats to reports we may have
more of a clue what's
* Dave Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 08:48:13AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > These patterns repeated in 4 places really call for a common helper
> > defined as print_lockdep_off(fmt...) or so?
> >
> > (Can be a followup patch if that's easier for you.)
>
> Given there was
* Dave Jones da...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 08:48:13AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
These patterns repeated in 4 places really call for a common helper
defined as print_lockdep_off(fmt...) or so?
(Can be a followup patch if that's easier for you.)
Given there
+0200
lockdep: Print out additional debugging advice when we hit lockdep BUGs
We occasionally get reports of these BUGs being hit, and the
stack trace doesn't necessarily always tell us what we need to
know about why we are hitting those limits.
If users start attaching /proc/lock_stats to reports
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 08:48:13AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> These patterns repeated in 4 places really call for a common helper
> defined as print_lockdep_off(fmt...) or so?
>
> (Can be a followup patch if that's easier for you.)
Given there was only one case which was really different,
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 08:48:13AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
These patterns repeated in 4 places really call for a common helper
defined as print_lockdep_off(fmt...) or so?
(Can be a followup patch if that's easier for you.)
Given there was only one case which was really different, I
* Dave Jones wrote:
> We occasionally get reports of these BUGs being hit, and the stack trace
> doesn't necessarily always tell us what we need to know about why we are
> hitting those limits.
>
> If users start attaching /proc/lock_stats to reports we may have more of
> a clue what's going
* Dave Jones da...@redhat.com wrote:
We occasionally get reports of these BUGs being hit, and the stack trace
doesn't necessarily always tell us what we need to know about why we are
hitting those limits.
If users start attaching /proc/lock_stats to reports we may have more of
a clue
We occasionally get reports of these BUGs being hit, and the stack trace
doesn't necessarily always tell us what we need to know about why we are
hitting those limits.
If users start attaching /proc/lock_stats to reports we may have more of
a clue what's going on.
Signed-off-by: Dave Jones
--
We occasionally get reports of these BUGs being hit, and the stack trace
doesn't necessarily always tell us what we need to know about why we are
hitting those limits.
If users start attaching /proc/lock_stats to reports we may have more of
a clue what's going on.
Signed-off-by: Dave Jones
10 matches
Mail list logo
