Re: [RFC][PATCH 06/11] sched: Fix trace_sched_switch()

2015-09-29 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 17:48:28 +0200 Peter Zijlstra wrote: > /SHOULD/ being the operative word. Experience has taught me that > changing the sched tracepoint leads to borkage. Right. But experience also tells us that those relying on offsets will get brokage if they run 32 bit userspace on a 64 bi

Re: [RFC][PATCH 06/11] sched: Fix trace_sched_switch()

2015-09-29 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 11:38:12AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 11:28:31 +0200 > Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > +static inline long __trace_sched_switch_state(bool preempt, struct > > task_struct *p) > > { > > + return preempt ? TASK_RUNNING | TASK_STATE_MAX : p->state; > >

Re: [RFC][PATCH 06/11] sched: Fix trace_sched_switch()

2015-09-29 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 11:28:31 +0200 Peter Zijlstra wrote: > __trace_sched_switch_state() is the last remaining PREEMPT_ACTIVE > user, move trace_sched_switch() from prepare_task_switch() to > __schedule() and propagate the @preempt argument. > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) > --- > inc

Re: [RFC][PATCH 06/11] sched: Fix trace_sched_switch()

2015-09-29 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > __trace_sched_switch_state() is the last remaining PREEMPT_ACTIVE > user, move trace_sched_switch() from prepare_task_switch() to > __schedule() and propagate the @preempt argument. Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner -- To unsubscribe from this list: send t