[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180427120858.1357f1e0@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 12:08:58 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
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>,
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 <kernel-team@...roid.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] tracepoint: Introduce tracepoint callbacks
executing with preempt on
On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 11:43:41 -0400 (EDT)
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:
> It does so by disabling preemption in the callbacks, even when it's
> redundant with the guarantees already provided by tracepoint-sched-rcu
> and by kprobes. It's not that great for a fast-path.
Really, preempt_disable() is not bad for a fast path. It's far better
than a local_irq_disable().
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists