From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753512AbcCUJ3T (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 21 Mar 2016 05:29:19 -0400
Received: from [198.137.202.9] ([198.137.202.9]:33181 "EHLO
	bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-FAIL-FAIL-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751421AbcCUJ3G (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 21 Mar 2016 05:29:06 -0400
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 10:27:46 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Add preempt checks in preempt_schedule() code
Message-ID: <20160321092746.GR6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20160318130602.25f6c9cd@gandalf.local.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160318130602.25f6c9cd@gandalf.local.home>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 01:06:02PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Now by breaking out the preempt off/on tracing into their own code:
> preempt_disable_check() and preempt_enable_check(), we can add these to
> the preempt_schedule() code. As preemption would then be disabled, even
> if they were to be traced by the function tracer, the disabled
> preemption would prevent the recursion.

> +static inline void preempt_disable_check(int val)
> +{
> +	if (preempt_count() == val) {
> +		unsigned long ip = get_parent_ip(CALLER_ADDR1);
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT
> +		current->preempt_disable_ip = ip;
> +#endif
> +		trace_preempt_off(CALLER_ADDR0, ip);
> +	}
> +}

> +static inline void preempt_enable_check(int val)
> +{
> +	if (preempt_count() == val)
> +		trace_preempt_on(CALLER_ADDR0, get_parent_ip(CALLER_ADDR1));
> +}

So no real objection to the patch except this naming.

It doesn't 'check', it does preempt-latency tracing. So could we rename
this to something like:

	preempt_{dis,en}able_latency()

or somesuch?