On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 10:11:31AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 02/05/2015 10:08 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > --- a/include/trace/events/tlb.h
> > +++ b/include/trace/events/tlb.h
> > @@ -13,11 +13,13 @@
> > { TLB_LOCAL_SHOOTDOWN, "local shootdown" }, \
> > { TLB_LOCAL_MM_SHOOTDOWN, "local mm shootdown" }
> >
> > -TRACE_EVENT(tlb_flush,
> > +TRACE_EVENT_CONDITION(tlb_flush,
> >
> > TP_PROTO(int reason, unsigned long pages),
> > TP_ARGS(reason, pages),
> >
> > + TP_CONDITION(cpu_online(smp_processor_id())),
>
> That's a pretty reasonable fix, although it would be nice if the
> debugging was easier to hit.
Looks very good to me!
Unless someone else speaks up, I will carry this patch.
> Did I actually need to be
> onlining/offlining CPUs to hit the splat that Sedat was reporting?
Yep, you do need to offline at least one CPU to hit that splat.
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
