[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180907095344.75465afd@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2018 09:53:44 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk/tracing: Do not trace printk_nmi_enter()
On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 11:30:55 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > That said, I am not against this change. Especially the inlining
> > is a good move. Note that lockdep_off()/lockdep_on() must not
> > be traced as well.
>
> Hard to trace an inline funcion; we could make it __always_inline to
> feel better.
In the old days, you would need to make it __always_inline, because if
gcc didn't inline it (and it did so in the past), it would be traced
and would re-introduce this bug. But I've hit this issue too many times
in the past, that I added "notrace" to the "inline" definition, where
all "inline" labeled functions are also "notrace".
lockdep.o has the -pg option removed in the Makefile so that all
functions in lockdep.c is notrace, which is why it was fine to keep it
there.
But adding __always_inline may not be a bad idea regardless.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists