On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 10:26:29 -0400 (EDT) Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com> wrote:
> The general approach and the implementation look fine, except for > one small detail: I would be tempted to explicitly disable preemption > around the call to the tracepoint callback for the rcuidle variant, > unless we plan to audit every tracer right away to remove any assumption > that preemption is disabled in the callback implementation. I'm thinking that we do that audit. There shouldn't be many instances of it. I like the idea that a tracepoint callback gets called with preemption enabled. -- Steve
