[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20211022222517.744bbca1@rorschach.local.home>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 22:25:17 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...nel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Tom Zanussi <zanussi@...nel.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-devel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 02/19] trace/osnoise: Split workload start from the
tracer start
On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 14:56:40 +0200
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...nel.org> wrote:
> +/*
> + * osnoise_workload_stop - stop the workload and unhook the events
> + */
> +static void osnoise_workload_stop(void)
> +{
> + if (!osnoise_busy)
> + return;
> +
> + trace_osnoise_callback_enabled = false;
I know this is just moving this code, but the original code had this
issue too, but there should be a comment here to why we need the
compiler barrier.
-- Steve
> + barrier();
> +
> + stop_per_cpu_kthreads();
> +
> + unhook_irq_events();
> + unhook_softirq_events();
> + unhook_thread_events();
> +
> + osnoise_busy = false;
> +}
> +
Powered by blists - more mailing lists