[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200415224214.GP2483@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 00:42:14 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@...gle.com>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: On trace_*_rcuidle functions in modules
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 03:04:59PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> My guess is that invoking rcu_irq_enter() and rcu_irq_exit() around every
> potential call into module code out of the PM code is a non-starter,
> but I cannot prove that either way.
Isn't that exactly what cpu_pm_notify() is doing?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists