On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 09:22:21AM +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
quoted text
> Hi, Steven,
> 
> On Fri, 2008-08-08 at 10:30 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> [...]
> > The only problem with this approach is what happens if the user changes 
> > the enabled in between these two calls. This would make ftrace 
> > inconsistent.
> > 
> > I have a patch from the -rt tree that handles what you want. It is 
> > attached below. Not sure how well it will apply to mainline.
> > 
> > I really need to go through the rt patch set and start submitting a bunch 
> > of clean-up/fixes to mainline. We've been meaning to do it, just have been 
> > distracted :-(
> 
> Your version is better in general sense. Thank you very much!
> 
> But in this specific situation of kexec/kjump. The execution environment
> is that other CPUs are disabled, local irq is disabled, and it is not
> permitted to switch to other process. But it is safe and sufficient to
> use non-locked version here.
> 
> So to satisfy both demands, I think it is better to provide both
> version, locked and non-locked. What do you think about that?
> 

Huang,

So you want to use a non-locked version from optimization point of view?
So that we don't end up taking and release a lock?

Thanks
Vivek
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/