From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 21:52:47 +0200 > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 01:15:55AM -0700, David Miller wrote: >> From: David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 00:56:13 -0700 (PDT) >> >> > Another idea is to decrement the ->disabled counter after the >> > local_irq_restore(). Yes, we might lose IRQ handler traces which >> > occur between the local_irq_restore() and the counter decrment, but we >> > would also be completely immune to recursion problems. >> >> So I just gave this a try and I still get the crashes I've >> been seeing with the non-graph function tracer, oh well :-) > > > Are you using the pause_graph_tracing() thing on the function > tracer? If so it won't work as it only applies to the function > graph tracer. No, I simply moved the atomic_dec() below the local_irq_restore() as stated in the first paragraph above :-) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
