[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200415185306.417c18c3@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 18:53:06 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.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 Thu, 16 Apr 2020 00:42:14 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> 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?
That was originally my concern, but I didn't look at cpu_pm_notify(), until
I was about to add that to it ;-) Then noticed, it was already there
(making my last email rather confusing as I wrote half of it before seeing
this, and then continued that email after the fact).
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists