On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 11:19:35 -0500 Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 11:17:09 -0500 > Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Or we simply change it to: > > > > static inline void > > Actually, the above should be noinline, as it's in a slower path, and > should not be adding logic into the cache of the fast path. However, to be honest, I'm surprized this is considered slow path. My use case is to record a few selected trace events with "trace-cmd record", which spends most time polling trace_pipe_raw. Consequently, there is almost always a pending waiter that requires a wakeup. In short, irq_work_queue() is the hot path for me. OTOH I don't mind making it noinline, because on recent Intel and AMD systems, a function call (noinline) is often cheaper than an increase in L1 cache footprint (caused by inlining). But I'm confused. I have always thought most people use tracing same way as I do. > > rb_irq_work_queue(struct rb_irq_work *irq_work) > > { > > int cpu; > > > > /* irq_work_queue_on() is not allowed in NMI context */ > > if (in_nmi()) { > > irq_work_queue(&irq_work->work, cpu); > > return; > > } Thanks for the idea. There are some downsides. IIUC there is no fundamental reason IPIs to other CPUs cannot be sent from NMI context. It's just a limitation of the current Linux kernel code. As such, it may be lifted in the future, and at that point nobody will remember to remove this condition. My current plan is it to keep the patch on hold and have a look why IPI backends are not NMI-safe. In fact, I'm not even 100% sure the comment is correct. The issue may have fixed itself e.g. by removing the last affected architecture. ;-) Petr T
