[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20200221092230.6ec9160d0ae135b14f29fd8c@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:22:30 +0900
From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To: Tom Zanussi <zanussi@...nel.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing: Have synthetic event test use
raw_smp_processor_id()
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:14:40 -0600
Tom Zanussi <zanussi@...nel.org> wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> On Thu, 2020-02-20 at 16:29 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > From: "Steven Rostedt (VMware)" <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> >
> > The test code that tests synthetic event creation pushes in as one of
> > its
> > test fields the current CPU using "smp_processor_id()". As this is
> > just
> > something to see if the value is correctly passed in, and the actual
> > CPU
> > used does not matter, use raw_smp_processor_id(), otherwise with
> > debug
> > preemption enabled, a warning happens as the smp_processor_id() is
> > called
> > without preemption enabled.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@...dmis.org>
>
> Makes sense - I guess it's simpler than Masami's and fine for this
> purpose.
>
> Reviewed-by: Tom Zanussi <zanussi@...nel.org>
Hmm, can we reserve ring buffer on CPU1 and commit it on CPU2?
Shouldn't we disable preemption between them?
Thank you,
--
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists