On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 11:28:39 -0400 Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 11:28:30 +0200 > Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > > > There is only a single PREEMPT_ACTIVE use in the regular __schedule() > > path and that is to circumvent the task->state check. Since the code > > setting PREEMPT_ACTIVE is the immediate caller of __schedule() we can > > replace this with a function argument. > > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <pet...@infradead.org> > > --- > > Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org> I just want to note that this scared me at first, because __schedule() can be traced by the function tracer that can also do a preempt_enable() which would schedule if preemption was enabled. But it looks as __schedule() is always called with preemption disabled, thus, no worries. -- Steve -- 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/
