RE: lockdep oddity

Hua Zhong
2006-09-06T08:23:08Z

We are just trading accuracy for speed here.

> On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 12:47:24AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 09:20:43 +0200
> > Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm also wondering why the profile
> > > patch contains this:
> > >
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + likeliness->count[1]++;
> > > + else
> > > + likeliness->count[0]++;
> > >
> > > This isn't smp safe. Is that on purpose or a bug?
> >
> > Purposeful. This is called from all contexts, including NMI.
>
> Why not use atomic_inc then? Or is there some architecture
> dependent limitation that it can't be done in every context?