From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754044AbYGIT1O (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jul 2008 15:27:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750940AbYGIT07 (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jul 2008 15:26:59 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:44158 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751162AbYGIT06 (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jul 2008 15:26:58 -0400 Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 21:26:30 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Cc: Nick Piggin , LKML , Jens Axboe , Peter Zijlstra , Christoph Lameter , Petr Tesarik , Virtualization , Xen devel , Thomas Friebel , Avi Kivity , the arch/x86 maintainers Subject: Re: [patch] x86, paravirt-spinlocks: fix boot hang Message-ID: <20080709192630.GA4804@elte.hu> References: <20080707190749.299430659@goop.org> <20080709122852.GA30579@elte.hu> <20080709133358.GA7005@elte.hu> <20080709134944.GA15190@elte.hu> <4874DF7F.4080204@goop.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4874DF7F.4080204@goop.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: >> should never >> be built with -pg (which ftrace does). Marking paravirt.o as >> non-pg and marking all spinlock ops as always-inline solve the >> hang. >> > > Thanks Ingo, that would have taken me a while to work out. yeah, i figured i'd be the better candidate to debug ftrace related problems ;-) > Presumably that means that xen/smp.o should also be built without -pg. > In fact, should I move the spinlock code into its own file, so that > ftrace can cover as much as it can? hm, yeah. Anything that can be called via the lowest level spinlock functions should be either notrace, or, better, in a -pg-excluded .o file. Putting it all into a separate file would cover it nicely i think. Ingo From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [patch] x86, paravirt-spinlocks: fix boot hang Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 21:26:30 +0200 Message-ID: <20080709192630.GA4804@elte.hu> References: <20080707190749.299430659@goop.org> <20080709122852.GA30579@elte.hu> <20080709133358.GA7005@elte.hu> <20080709134944.GA15190@elte.hu> <4874DF7F.4080204@goop.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4874DF7F.4080204@goop.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Cc: Jens Axboe , Nick Piggin , Xen devel , Peter Zijlstra , Christoph Lameter , the arch/x86 maintainers , Petr Tesarik , LKML , Avi Kivity , Virtualization , Thomas Friebel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org * Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: >> should never >> be built with -pg (which ftrace does). Marking paravirt.o as >> non-pg and marking all spinlock ops as always-inline solve the >> hang. >> > > Thanks Ingo, that would have taken me a while to work out. yeah, i figured i'd be the better candidate to debug ftrace related problems ;-) > Presumably that means that xen/smp.o should also be built without -pg. > In fact, should I move the spinlock code into its own file, so that > ftrace can cover as much as it can? hm, yeah. Anything that can be called via the lowest level spinlock functions should be either notrace, or, better, in a -pg-excluded .o file. Putting it all into a separate file would cover it nicely i think. Ingo