[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180427104747.2d965925@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 10:47:47 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@...ux.intel.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
fweisbec <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
baohong liu <baohong.liu@...el.com>,
vedang patel <vedang.patel@...el.com>, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] tracepoint: Introduce tracepoint callbacks
executing with preempt on
On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 10:26:29 -0400 (EDT)
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:
> The general approach and the implementation look fine, except for
> one small detail: I would be tempted to explicitly disable preemption
> around the call to the tracepoint callback for the rcuidle variant,
> unless we plan to audit every tracer right away to remove any assumption
> that preemption is disabled in the callback implementation.
I'm thinking that we do that audit. There shouldn't be many instances
of it. I like the idea that a tracepoint callback gets called with
preemption enabled.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists