On Tue, 1 May 2018 14:15:14 -0700 Joel Fernandes <joel.open...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org> wrote: > > On Tue, 1 May 2018 21:48:38 +0200 > > Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 03:38:40PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > >> > On Tue, 1 May 2018 21:19:51 +0200 > >> > Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > >> > >> > > Now, lockdep only minimally tracks these otherwise redundant > >> > > operations; > >> > > see redundant_hardirqs_{on,off} counters, and loosing that doesn't seen > >> > > like a big issue. > >> > > > >> > > But I'm confused how this helps track superfluous things, it looks like > >> > > it explicitly tracks _less_ superfluous transitions. > >> > > >> > I think it is about triggering on OFF->OFF a warning, as that would > >> > only happen if we have: > >> > > >> > local_irq_save(flags); > >> > [..] > >> > local_irq_disable(); > >> > > >> > >> Ahh, ok. Yes, that is easier to do with these changes. The alternative > >> is to add more information to the tracehooks such that we can do the > >> same internally, but whatever. > >> > >> Yeah, I'm fine with the proposed change, but maybe improve the Changelog > >> a little for slow people like me :-) > > > > Great! > > > > Nicholas, > > > > I know this is an old patch (from last November), but want to send it > > again with a proper change log and signed off by? > > I actually wrote the exact same patch yesterday with changes Matsami > suggested. However I decided not to send it, since it didn't have any > performance improvement (which was the reason I wrote it). > > Also with my recent set, I don't think it will help detect repeated > calls to trace_hardirqs_off because we are handling that recursive > case by using per-cpu variable and bailing out if there is a > recursion, before even calling into lockdep. > > I have mixed feelings about this patch, I am Ok with this patch but I > suggest its sent with the follow-up patch that shows its use of this. > And also appreciate if such a follow-up patch is rebased onto the IRQ > tracepoint work: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10373129/ > > What do you think? I'll try to dig it up and resend. Thanks for the feedback on it. Thanks, Nick