[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200219155828.GF18400@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 16:58:28 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
mingo@...nel.org, joel@...lfernandes.org,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, gustavo@...eddedor.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, paulmck@...nel.org, josh@...htriplett.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, jiangshanlai@...il.com,
luto@...nel.org, tony.luck@...el.com, frederic@...nel.org,
dan.carpenter@...cle.com, mhiramat@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/22] rcu,tracing: Create trace_rcu_{enter,exit}()
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 10:49:03AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 15:47:32 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > These helpers are macros because of header-hell; they're placed here
> > because of the proximity to nmi_{enter,exit{().
^^^^
> > +#define trace_rcu_enter() \
> > +({ \
> > + unsigned long state = 0; \
> > + if (!rcu_is_watching()) { \
> > + rcu_irq_enter_irqsave(); \
> > + state = 1; \
> > + } \
> > + state; \
> > +})
> > +
> > +#define trace_rcu_exit(state) \
> > +do { \
> > + if (state) \
> > + rcu_irq_exit_irqsave(); \
> > +} while (0)
> > +
>
> Is there a reason that these can't be static __always_inline functions?
It can be done, but then we need fwd declarations of those RCU functions
somewhere outside of rcupdate.h. It's all a bit of a mess.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists