Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 4

[Paul E. McKenney]

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-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/