On 02/04, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 4 Feb 2015 17:23:51 -0800 > Stephen Boyd <sb...@codeaurora.org> wrote: > > > On 01/30, Daniel Thompson wrote: > > > @@ -98,26 +98,50 @@ unsigned long long notrace sched_clock(void) > > > } > > > > > > /* > > > + * Updating the data required to read the clock. > > > + * > > > + * sched_clock will never observe mis-matched data even if called from > > > + * an NMI. We do this by maintaining an odd/even copy of the data and > > > + * steering sched_clock to one or the other using a sequence counter. > > > + * In order to preserve the data cache profile of sched_clock as much > > > + * as possible the system reverts back to the even copy when the update > > > + * completes; the odd copy is used *only* during an update. > > > + */ > > > +static void update_clock_read_data(struct clock_read_data *rd) > > > > notrace? > > Why? Isn't this for update, not for readers? >
Good point. I was basing it on the fact that the caller, update_sched_clock() is marked notrace. It looks like it's always been that way (see commit 2f0778afac79 "ARM: 7205/2: sched_clock: allow sched_clock to be selected at runtime" from 2011-12-15 where it was introduced). So the correct thing would be to drop notrace from update_sched_clock(). -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project -- 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/