[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180427124641.7b991c57@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 12:46:41 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zilstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@...ux.intel.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Thomas Glexiner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Fenguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Baohong Liu <baohong.liu@...el.com>,
Vedang Patel <vedang.patel@...el.com>,
"Cc: Android Kernel" <kernel-team@...roid.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] tracepoint: Introduce tracepoint callbacks
executing with preempt on
On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 09:45:54 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > That shouldn't be needed. For the rcu_read_lock_sched case, there is a
> > > preempt_disable which needs to be a notrace, but for the srcu one,
> > > since we don't do that, I think it should be fine.
> >
> > Actually, I think I may agree here too. Because the _notrace is for
> > function tracing, and it shouldn't affect it. If people don't want it
> > traced, they could add those functions to the list in the notrace file.
>
> OK, feel free to ignore my notrace srcu_read_lock() patch, then. ;-)
Of course I wasn't thinking about the lockdep tracepoints that Joel
mentioned, which happens to be the reason for all this discussion in
the first place :-) Now I think we do need it. (OK, I can keep
changing my mind, can't I?).
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists