From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933007AbeD0PkK (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Apr 2018 11:40:10 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:48138 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932803AbeD0PkJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Apr 2018 11:40:09 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org EBC1F2184B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=goodmis.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=rostedt@goodmis.org Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 11:40:05 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers , Joel Fernandes , linux-kernel , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Tom Zanussi , Namhyung Kim , Thomas Gleixner , Boqun Feng , fweisbec , Randy Dunlap , Masami Hiramatsu , kbuild test robot , baohong liu , vedang patel , kernel-team@android.com Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] tracepoint: Introduce tracepoint callbacks executing with preempt on Message-ID: <20180427114005.31d1e8ab@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20180427153826.GK26088@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20180427042656.190746-1-joelaf@google.com> <1169911546.5820.1524839189395.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <20180427104747.2d965925@gandalf.local.home> <20180427153826.GK26088@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.16.0 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 08:38:26 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" wrote: > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 10:47:47AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 10:26:29 -0400 (EDT) > > Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > > > > > The general approach and the implementation look fine, except for > > > one small detail: I would be tempted to explicitly disable preemption > > > around the call to the tracepoint callback for the rcuidle variant, > > > unless we plan to audit every tracer right away to remove any assumption > > > that preemption is disabled in the callback implementation. > > > > I'm thinking that we do that audit. There shouldn't be many instances > > of it. I like the idea that a tracepoint callback gets called with > > preemption enabled. > > Are you really sure you want to increase your state space that much? Why not? The code I have in callbacks already deals with all sorts of context - normal, softirq, irq, NMI, preemption disabled, irq disabled. -- Steve