Re: [PATCH 2/2] More precise timestamps for nested writes

["Suresh E. Warrier" <warrier@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On 04/14/2015 12:13 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 09:38:01PM -0500, Suresh E. Warrier wrote:
>> +static u64 *get_write_timestamp(struct ring_buffer_per_cpu *cpu_buffer,
>> +				unsigned long *flags)
>> +{
>> +	if (rb_precise_nested_write_ts()) {
>> +		/*
>> +		 * Ensure that we are not preempted until after we update
>> +		 * the write timestamp.
>> +		 */
>> +		local_irq_save(*flags);
>> +		return &cpu_buffer->last_stamp;
> 
> Yeah, ever hear about NMIs? This isn't going to work.

That is a good point! If a NMI can come in and start running a handler
that can generate a trace event, this code is indeed broken.

Some architectures like PowerPC don't have NMIs like Intel and so 
I hadn't thought of that. Thanks for catching that!

Let me update the patch to handle NMIs - trace events from NMI code 
cannot be made precise (the behavior will be the same as without the
patch).

-suresh