On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 08:16:29AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-06-04 at 14:09 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >
> > > +/**
> > > + * preempt_schedule_context - preempt_schedule called by tracing
> > > + *
> > > + * The tracing infrastructure uses preempt_enable_notrace to prevent
> > > + * recursion and tracing preempt enabling caused by the tracing
> > > + * infrastructure itself. But as tracing can happen in areas coming
> > > + * from userspace or just about to enter userspace, a preempt enable
> > > + * can occur before user_exit() is called. This will cause the scheduler
> > > + * to be called when the system is still in usermode.
> > > + *
> > > + * To prevent this, the preempt_enable_notrace will use this function
> > > + * instead of preempt_schedule() to exit user context if needed before
> > > + * calling the scheduler.
> > > + */
> > > +void __sched notrace preempt_schedule_context(void)
> > > +{
> > > + struct thread_info *ti = current_thread_info();
> > > + enum ctx_state prev_ctx;
> > > +
> > > + if (likely(ti->preempt_count || irqs_disabled()))
> > > + return;
> >
> > or:
> > if (!preemptible())
> > return;
>
> Sure, but this is a cut and paste from preempt_schedule(). If I make
> that change here, I would want to make that there too.
>
> Peter, should I use !preemptible() or keep it like preempt_schedule()
> and make a clean up change for 3.11?
That seem to indeed make sense to use it in preempt_schedule() as well.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
