On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 11:41:02AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 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.
There was a comment stating this was important, and its a notrace
annotated function :-)
--
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/
