From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russell King - ARM Linux Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: sched_clock: Add more notrace to prevent recursion Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 10:20:32 +0100 Message-ID: <20130418092031.GH14496@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1363306086-23501-1-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org> <514B483F.7000304@codeaurora.org> <5151DC75.7030606@codeaurora.org> <516F3FA5.8070307@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <516F3FA5.8070307@codeaurora.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Boyd Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 05:34:45PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 03/26/13 10:35, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > On 03/21/13 10:49, Stephen Boyd wrote: > >> On 03/14/13 17:08, Stephen Boyd wrote: > >>> cyc_to_sched_clock() is called by sched_clock() and cyc_to_ns() > >>> is called by cyc_to_sched_clock(). I suspect that some compilers > >>> inline both of these functions into sched_clock() and so we've > >>> been getting away without having a notrace marking. It seems that > >>> my compiler isn't inlining cyc_to_sched_clock() though, so I'm > >>> hitting a recursion bug when I enable the function graph tracer, > >>> causing my system to crash. Marking these functions notrace fixes > >>> it. Technically cyc_to_ns() doesn't need the notrace because it's > >>> already marked inline, but let's just add it so that if we ever > >>> remove inline from that function it doesn't blow up. > >> Anyone else seeing this problem? > > Russell, should I put this into the patch tracker? > > I'll throw this into the patch tracker tomorrow if nobody complains. Or you could do so today. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 10:20:32 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: sched_clock: Add more notrace to prevent recursion In-Reply-To: <516F3FA5.8070307@codeaurora.org> References: <1363306086-23501-1-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org> <514B483F.7000304@codeaurora.org> <5151DC75.7030606@codeaurora.org> <516F3FA5.8070307@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: <20130418092031.GH14496@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 05:34:45PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 03/26/13 10:35, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > On 03/21/13 10:49, Stephen Boyd wrote: > >> On 03/14/13 17:08, Stephen Boyd wrote: > >>> cyc_to_sched_clock() is called by sched_clock() and cyc_to_ns() > >>> is called by cyc_to_sched_clock(). I suspect that some compilers > >>> inline both of these functions into sched_clock() and so we've > >>> been getting away without having a notrace marking. It seems that > >>> my compiler isn't inlining cyc_to_sched_clock() though, so I'm > >>> hitting a recursion bug when I enable the function graph tracer, > >>> causing my system to crash. Marking these functions notrace fixes > >>> it. Technically cyc_to_ns() doesn't need the notrace because it's > >>> already marked inline, but let's just add it so that if we ever > >>> remove inline from that function it doesn't blow up. > >> Anyone else seeing this problem? > > Russell, should I put this into the patch tracker? > > I'll throw this into the patch tracker tomorrow if nobody complains. Or you could do so today.