On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 11:02:45AM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
SNIP
> +/*
> + * Pure refs increase without any chec/warn.
> + */
> +static inline void refcount_inc_no_warn(refcount_t *r)
> +{
> + atomic_inc(&r->refs);
> +}
> +
> /*
> * Similar to atomic_dec_and_test(), it will WARN on underflo
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 10:49:40AM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Hi Jiri,
>
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 12:29:34PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 10:08:27PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> > > > Because thread 2 first decrements the refcnt and only after then it
>
Hi Jiri,
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 12:29:34PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 10:08:27PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
> > > Because thread 2 first decrements the refcnt and only after then it
> > > removes the struct comm_str from the list, the thread 1 can find this
> >
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 10:08:27PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
SNIP
> > Because thread 2 first decrements the refcnt and only after then it
> > removes the struct comm_str from the list, the thread 1 can find this
> > object on the list with refcnt equls to 0 and hit the assert.
> >
> > This patc
Hi Jiri,
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 04:20:20PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> We occasionaly hit following assert failure in perf top,
> when processing the /proc info in multiple threads.
>
> perf: ...include/linux/refcount.h:109: refcount_inc:
> Assertion `!(!refcount_inc_not_zero(r))' failed
We occasionaly hit following assert failure in perf top,
when processing the /proc info in multiple threads.
perf: ...include/linux/refcount.h:109: refcount_inc:
Assertion `!(!refcount_inc_not_zero(r))' failed.
The gdb backtrace looks like this:
[Switching to Thread 0x711ba700 (L
6 matches
Mail list logo
