[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220921220800.02c4c63e@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2022 22:08:00 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] tracing: Use proper do_arch_spin_lock() API
On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 21:48:41 -0400
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 9/21/22 18:17, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >> savedcmd_temp = savedcmd;
> >> savedcmd = s;
> >> - arch_spin_unlock(&trace_cmdline_lock);
> >> + do_arch_spin_unlock(&trace_cmdline_lock);
> >> free_saved_cmdlines_buffer(savedcmd_temp);
> >>
> >> return 0;
> >> @@ -6373,10 +6369,10 @@ int tracing_set_tracer(struct trace_array *tr, const char *buf)
> >>
> >> #ifdef CONFIG_TRACER_SNAPSHOT
> >> if (t->use_max_tr) {
> >> - arch_spin_lock(&tr->max_lock);
> >> + do_arch_spin_lock(&tr->max_lock);
> > Add preemption disabling.
> >
> The pattern that I have seen so far is to disable preemption for
> trace_cmdline_lock, but interrupt for max_lock. So should we also
> disable interrupt here instead of preemption?
>
Ah yes.
Thanks,
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists