On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 08:38:26 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 10:47:47AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > 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. > > Are you really sure you want to increase your state space that much? Why not? The code I have in callbacks already deals with all sorts of context - normal, softirq, irq, NMI, preemption disabled, irq disabled. -- Steve
