From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932613AbVJ0BiY (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:38:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932619AbVJ0BiY (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:38:24 -0400 Received: from ms-smtp-01.nyroc.rr.com ([24.24.2.55]:50103 "EHLO ms-smtp-01.nyroc.rr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932613AbVJ0BiX (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:38:23 -0400 Subject: Re: 2.6.14-rc4-rt7 From: Steven Rostedt To: john stultz Cc: William Weston , Rui Nuno Capela , george@mvista.com, Ingo Molnar , Fernando Lopez-Lezcano , Mark Knecht , david singleton , Thomas Gleixner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cc@ccrma.Stanford.EDU In-Reply-To: <1130376147.27168.381.camel@cog.beaverton.ibm.com> References: <1129852531.5227.4.camel@cmn3.stanford.edu> <20051021080504.GA5088@elte.hu> <1129937138.5001.4.camel@cmn3.stanford.edu> <20051022035851.GC12751@elte.hu> <1130182121.4983.7.camel@cmn3.stanford.edu> <1130182717.4637.2.camel@cmn3.stanford.edu> <1130183199.27168.296.camel@cog.beaverton.ibm.com> <20051025154440.GA12149@elte.hu> <1130264218.27168.320.camel@cog.beaverton.ibm.com> <435E91AA.7080900@mvista.com> <20051026082800.GB28660@elte.hu> <435FA8BD.4050105@mvista.com> <435FBA34.5040000@mvista.com> <435FEAE7.8090104@rncbc.org> <1130371042.21118.76.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1130373953.27168.370.camel@cog.beaverton.ibm.com> <1130375244.21118.91.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1130376147.27168.381.camel@cog.beaverton.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Kihon Technologies Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:37:36 -0400 Message-Id: <1130377056.21118.102.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2005-10-26 at 18:22 -0700, john stultz wrote: > > I don't know if that would really fix it, because ideally you want to > read the prev_mono_time at the same point you calculate the time inside > the read lock'ed critical section. Ideally yes, but this is just for debugging, so as long as prev is read before now, this should prevent false positives due to ordering. But I'm not sure if my patch did anything regardless, since the prev_mono_time is a cpu variable, and the get_cpu and put_cpu implement a preempt_disable, so unless an interrupt is changing it, it should be OK. -- Steve