On Mon, Mar 01, 2021 at 04:53:27PM +0100, Jürgen Groß wrote: > On 01.03.21 16:45, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2021 at 04:07:04PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 10:05:51PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 10:12:05AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 05:38:44PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I hate all of this, but if this will finally catch the actual problem, > > > > > > we can then revert all this, so sure. > > > > > > > > > > OK, I will bite... What exactly do you hate about it? > > > > > > > > It's ugly and messy. We're basically commiting a debug session. Normally > > > > gunk like this is done in private trees, then we find the problem and > > > > fix that and crap like this never sees the light of day. > > > > > > Is your hatred due to the presence of debug code at all, or a belief that > > > this code is unlikely to be useful in any subsequent IPI-related bug hunt? > > > > The clutter, mostly I think. There's a lot of debug sprinkled about. > > I agree. > > In case we are able to identify the root cause of the problem I think > it would be no problem to revert this patch and put a comment into smp.c > naming the commit-id of this patch and what it was good for. This will > enable future bug hunters to make use of the patch without spoiling the > code for others. Works for me! Thanx, Paul
