[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220422115234.613436e4@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 11:52:34 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: patrick wang <patrick.wang.shcn@...il.com>
Cc: paulmck@...nel.org, frederic@...nel.org, quic_neeraju@...cinc.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
jiangshanlai@...il.com, joel@...lfernandes.org,
rcu@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: ftrace: avoid tracing a few functions executed in
multi_cpu_stop()
On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 18:45:46 +0800
patrick wang <patrick.wang.shcn@...il.com> wrote:
> Yes, and not just RISC-V. It's arch-independent. It's the internal change of
> stop machine implementation.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Former stop machine wait loop:
> do {
> cpu_relax(); => macro
> ...
> } while (curstate != STOPMACHINE_EXIT);
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Current stop machine wait loop:
> do {
> stop_machine_yield(cpumask); => function (notraced)
> ...
> touch_nmi_watchdog(); => function (notraced, inside calls also notraced)
> ...
> rcu_momentary_dyntick_idle(); => function (notraced, inside calls traced)
> } while (curstate != MULTI_STOP_EXIT);
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
That makes much more sense. Can you add that to the change log.
Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt (Google) <rostedt@...dmis.org>
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists