[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230310235653.GC1605437@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2023 00:56:53 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Trace Kernel <linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tracing: Make tracepoint lockdep check actually test
something
On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 05:28:56PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> @@ -249,9 +248,7 @@ static inline struct tracepoint *tracepoint_ptr_deref(tracepoint_ptr_t *p)
> TP_ARGS(args), \
> TP_CONDITION(cond), 0); \
> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LOCKDEP) && (cond)) { \
> - rcu_read_lock_sched_notrace(); \
> - rcu_dereference_sched(__tracepoint_##name.funcs);\
> - rcu_read_unlock_sched_notrace(); \
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_is_watching()); \
> } \
> } \
> __DECLARE_TRACE_RCU(name, PARAMS(proto), PARAMS(args), \
Yep, that makes heaps more sense. If you so care you can save one more
line and make the {} go away too.
In any case,
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists