From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754570Ab3HaUnc (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 Aug 2013 16:43:32 -0400 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.122]:3705 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753146Ab3HaUnb (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 Aug 2013 16:43:31 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=ddwCLAre c=1 sm=0 a=Sro2XwOs0tJUSHxCKfOySw==:17 a=Drc5e87SC40A:10 a=evCvn7woWxUA:10 a=5SG0PmZfjMsA:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=meVymXHHAAAA:8 a=KGjhK52YXX0A:10 a=cXzqHbTEY4EA:10 a=VnNF1IyMAAAA:8 a=54jBMmSRJKeqt0ZiTtgA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=jeBq3FmKZ4MA:10 a=Sro2XwOs0tJUSHxCKfOySw==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Authenticated-User: X-Originating-IP: 67.255.60.225 Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 15/18 v2] ftrace/rcu: Mark functions that are RCU unsafe From: Steven Rostedt To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Peter Zijlstra , Frederic Weisbecker , Jiri Olsa In-Reply-To: <20130831200044.GU3871@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20130831051117.884125230@goodmis.org> <20130831051702.922659300@goodmis.org> <20130831200044.GU3871@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 16:43:24 -0400 Message-ID: <1377981804.26624.7.camel@pippen.local.home> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2013-08-31 at 13:00 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 01:11:32AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > From: "Steven Rostedt (Red Hat)" > > > > Some callbacks of the function tracer use rcu_read_lock(). This means that > > there's places that can not be traced because RCU is not tracking the CPU > > for various reasons (like NO_HZ_FULL and coming back from userspace). > > > > Thes functions need to be marked so that callbacks that use RCU do not > > trace them. > > > > Cc: Paul E. McKenney > > Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt > > Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney > > Please let me know if you would like me to take this one. If I don't > hear otherwise, I will assume that you are pushing it. > These I rather take, as they are all dependent on the previous changes. Thanks! -- Steve