From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: fche@redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler) Subject: Re: [Question] Hooks for scheduler tracing (CFS) Date: 26 Jul 2007 10:47:40 -0400 Message-ID: References: <3efb10970707161246se06ab22i32872cfe6fa4f2f6@mail.gmail.com> <1184615557.2698.3.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20070726072858.GC13061@in.ibm.com> <20070726133138.GA30559@Krystal> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Ankita Garg , Arjan van de Ven , linux@bohmer.net, LKML , RT-Users , Ingo Molnar To: Mathieu Desnoyers Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:52429 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753562AbXGZOtI (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:49:08 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070726133138.GA30559@Krystal> Sender: linux-rt-users-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-rt-users.vger.kernel.org Mathieu Desnoyers writes: > [...] > The problem is also in _stp_print_flush, not *only* in relay code: > void _stp_print_flush (void) > ... > spin_lock(&_stp_print_lock); > ... > spin_unlock(&_stp_print_lock); > > Those will turn into mutexes with -rt. Indeed, plus systemtap-generated locking code uses rwlocks, local_irq_save/restore or preempt_disable, in various places. Could someone point to a place that spells out what would be more appropriate way of ensuring atomicity while being compatible with -rt? - FChE