[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALAqxLX2UDQ7=dvzMoP6g-rYzw9dBebrynMfo4Gnv=SzaqhE=g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 17:06:24 -0700
From: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.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>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: On trace_*_rcuidle functions in modules
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 3:51 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> I was about to suggest a patch, but that has already been written...
>
> 313c8c16ee62b ("PM / CPU: replace raw_notifier with atomic_notifier")
>
> Which surrounds the notifier callbacks with rcu_irq_enter_irqson()
>
> Which means that if John moves the code to use the notifier, then he could
> also remove the _rcuidle(), because RCU will be watching.
So you're saying the recent change to move to using trace_*_rcuidle()
was unnecessary?
Or is there a different notifier then cpu_pm_register_notifier() that
the driver should be using (that one seems to be using
atomic_notifier_chain_register())?
thanks
-john
Powered by blists - more mailing lists