[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <be7cbe08-9657-f5ac-4053-0cf2b9c26a78@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 09:33:53 +0200
From: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...nel.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.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 10/23/21 04:25, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 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.
I will add a comment, like we have on hwlat.
-- Daniel
> -- Steve
>
>
>> + barrier();
>> +
>> + stop_per_cpu_kthreads();
>> +
>> + unhook_irq_events();
>> + unhook_softirq_events();
>> + unhook_thread_events();
>> +
>> + osnoise_busy = false;
>> +}
>> +
Powered by blists - more mailing lists