Re: [RT] possible bug in trace_start_sched_wakeup

* Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote:

>  			trace_special_pid(sch.task->pid, sch.task->prio, p->prio);
> -		if (sch.task && (sch.task->prio >= p->prio))
> +		if (sch.task && ((sch.task->prio <= p->prio) || !rt_task(p)))
>  			sch.task = NULL;

this second condition i'd not change: it just expresses the rare case 
where a higher-prio task hits the CPU that we somehow did not start to 
trace. In that case we just zap the current trace.

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [RT] possible bug in trace_start_sched_wakeup
    • From: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [RT] possible bug in trace_start_sched_wakeup
    • From: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RT] possible bug in trace_start_sched_wakeup
    • From: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [RT] possible bug in trace_start_sched_wakeup
• Next by Date: Re: GPL V3 and Linux
• Previous by thread: Re: [RT] possible bug in trace_start_sched_wakeup
• Next by thread: Re: [RT] possible bug in trace_start_sched_wakeup
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]