[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87bjztaz7e.fsf@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2024 11:49:41 -0700
From: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
<bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Peter
Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...nel.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
vschneid@...hat.com, efault@....de,
Masami Hiramatsu
<mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] tracing: Record task flag NEED_RESCHED_LAZY.
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> writes:
> On Wed, 09 Oct 2024 10:30:28 -0700
> Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com> wrote:
>
>> > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace.c
>> > @@ -2544,6 +2544,8 @@ unsigned int tracing_gen_ctx_irq_test(unsigned int irqs_status)
>> > trace_flags |= TRACE_FLAG_NEED_RESCHED;
>> > if (test_preempt_need_resched())
>> > trace_flags |= TRACE_FLAG_PREEMPT_RESCHED;
>> > + if (tif_test_bit(TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY))
>>
>> TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY falls back to TIF_NEED_RESCHED without
>> CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PREEMPT_LAZY. So, you might need to add an explicit
>> check for that as well.
>>
>> With that,
>> Reviewed-by: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>
>>
>> Ankur
>>
>
> So this should be:
>
> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PREEMPT_LAZY) &&
> tif_test_bit(TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY))
>
> ?
Yeah, exactly that.
--
ankur
Powered by blists - more mailing lists