[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YgUc5HxfIdJ0Z5AN@linutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 15:10:44 +0100
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, joseph.salisbury@...onical.com,
Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] selftests/ftrace: Do not trace do_softirq because of
PREEMPT_RT
On 2022-02-10 15:05:24 [+0100], Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 10/02/2022 14:47, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On 2022-02-10 09:33:56 [+0100], Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> The PREEMPT_RT patchset does not use soft IRQs thus trying to filter for
> >> do_softirq fails for such kernel:
> >
> > PREEMPT_RT does use soft IRQs.
>
> Correct. It does not use do_softirq() code, but follows different path
> with ksoftirqd.
> Shall I rephrase it towards something like this? Or maybe you have some
> more accurate description?
It would be good to describe what the purpose of the change in terms of
the actual problem and the aimed solution.
> The implementation detail is that do_softirq() is in ifndef.
So let me ask again. We have
FUNC1="schedule"
FUNC2="do_softirq"
What is the purpose of this? Do you need FUNC2 when ksoftirqd is run or
when softirqs are served? Not sure how scheduler_tick fits in all this.
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists