Re: [PATCH][5/8] Arch agnostic completely out of line locks / ppc64

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> 
> Unfortunately the alternative appears to be stack unwinding in
> profile_pc(), which was why I hoped we could punt. Any other ideas?

Why do we care about profile_pc() here? It should do the right thing 
as-is.

What you care about is wchan, and stack unwiding _over_ the spinlocks. 
Since a spinlock can never be part of the wchan callchain, I vote we just 
change "in_sched_functions()" to claim that anything in the spinlock 
section is also a scheduler function as far as it's concerned.

That makes wchan happy, and profile_pc() really never should care.

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