On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 11:28:32 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
> Now that nothing tests for PREEMPT_ACTIVE anymore, stop setting it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <pet...@infradead.org>
> @@ -3243,13 +3243,7 @@ asmlinkage __visible void __sched notrac
> return;
>
> do {
> - /*
> - * Use raw __prempt_count() ops that don't call function.
> - * We can't call functions before disabling preemption which
> - * disarm preemption tracing recursions.
> - */
> - __preempt_count_add(PREEMPT_ACTIVE + PREEMPT_DISABLE_OFFSET);
> - barrier();
> + preempt_disable_notrace();
> /*
> * Needs preempt disabled in case user_exit() is traced
> * and the tracer calls preempt_enable_notrace() causing
> @@ -3259,8 +3253,7 @@ asmlinkage __visible void __sched notrac
> __schedule(true);
> exception_exit(prev_ctx);
>
> - barrier();
> - __preempt_count_sub(PREEMPT_ACTIVE + PREEMPT_DISABLE_OFFSET);
> + preempt_enable_no_resched_notrace();
Nice, you used the notrace variants for this function.
Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org>
-- Steve
> } while (need_resched());
> }
--
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/
