On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 10/03, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
>>
>> > [ 921.917752] ? ___preempt_schedule_context (arch/x86/lib/thunk_64.S:44)
>> > [ 921.917752] ? preempt_schedule_context (kernel/context_tracking.c:145)
>> > [ 921.917752] ? ___preempt_schedule_context (arch/x86/lib/thunk_64.S:44)
>> > [ 921.917752] ? preempt_schedule_context (kernel/context_tracking.c:145)
>> > [ 921.917752] ? ___preempt_schedule_context (arch/x86/lib/thunk_64.S:44)
>> > [ 921.917752] ? preempt_schedule_context (kernel/context_tracking.c:145)
>> > [ 921.917752] ? ___preempt_schedule_context (arch/x86/lib/thunk_64.S:44)
>> > [ 921.917752] ? preempt_schedule_context (kernel/context_tracking.c:145)
>> > [ 921.917752] ? ___preempt_schedule_context (arch/x86/lib/thunk_64.S:44)
>> > [ 921.917752] ? preempt_schedule_context (kernel/context_tracking.c:145)
>>
>> <snip lots of repeats of this>
>>
>> I *think* this is because RBP isn't being saved across task switch
>> anymore?
>>
>> Without CONFIG_FRAME_POINTERS that night not be a problem...
>
> Could you please spell?
>
> I don't even understand "RBP isn't being saved", SAVE_CONTEXT/RESTORE_CONTEXT
> do push/pop %rbp?
>
Is this thing missing a flags or cc clobber:
# define __preempt_schedule() asm ("call ___preempt_schedule")
Also, I'm at a loss as to wtf all this code is doing.
There's preempt_schedule, which appears to be a normal C function.
There's ___preempt_schedule, which is written in assembly and calls
preempt_schedule.
Then there's __preempt_schedule, which is an inline assembler function
that calls ___preempt_schedule.
Is this all just to make the call sequence for preempt_schedule shorter?
--Andy
> Thanks,
>
> Oleg.
>
--
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
