From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50C352F56 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2025 15:20:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1752160813; cv=none; b=iXP6CHsdO+tSkhWKXn2RBsshncIoUnzX7pEaLpq9khe7WF56aRgQ7abpp/Ou9nBaFZmnqxoDtVRI7hlGd3w7vmeOtszAxYuArtgWa89zauzezwQsqlirbDm5/MEt0m2U+lLbpF27SIFlayWqqJ4CrN+FoRelfRrsUTrt/q/xkZ4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1752160813; c=relaxed/simple; bh=5pL1qSY8fecIxP7Zg8RFZCNvEuRoU2WKs5prcrns6UQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=SWvmm5HxLKIdJZnsh1T0QTYetXRS50/Nuiz+JZrk69Kc7AdTE9ouVDK4qyTk1Uv7JJxIDV2bqTeC9QL5p6zucVYHZ5rY7OlrhxjpX8yiCe010rq5X57GlTnvI1qKATI5AdKJedv9aXlZeGw8nqRFDTG3JeUQVqZOkK4+TioSJXk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=qv4yLZCQ; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=TTErbF4W; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="qv4yLZCQ"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="TTErbF4W" Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2025 17:20:08 +0200 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1752160810; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=5pL1qSY8fecIxP7Zg8RFZCNvEuRoU2WKs5prcrns6UQ=; b=qv4yLZCQM7ccpCIKJSdU1FLXRokDLVdPjGav8PDWyuMNLy5IMGfuUpelAfIwDqr5kYiJmN 7BSYgrQDs4yUGs9B59N5seLjuACgAIhwiSAdkGS0xknnugvFKgCfzcsouUanWt8j1+/Pm4 V282M5KiSj2yq9+bNFjIYkKnhqJbZucooUszu9XPz3aPOx+ST9TbbL8wUFWN/1FhE3N81+ nzlAK5pk2IP5Ssd42LATUj2XyTIzpTQOcuYArOiHyjieql5lQxhfXxZCbt1T64u5U9o5nv kAS/u6dyIiyScyxVpyUYEbbJ3qsz8dz9dTUJ0QHlgr/69574Ov+yaWj4AfnMiw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1752160810; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=5pL1qSY8fecIxP7Zg8RFZCNvEuRoU2WKs5prcrns6UQ=; b=TTErbF4W9MbNM19uoYSRqeCfRQc6/tTonFfjuXM4xtNBGHuaKNYC2BN21NGZQp0m9g8btA +vigLs1XrtH7MAAw== From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior To: Ville =?utf-8?B?U3lyasOkbMOk?= Cc: Ben Hutchings , linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, Debian kernel maintainers Subject: Re: PREEMPT_RT vs i915 Message-ID: <20250710152008.ZyaHjC3w@linutronix.de> References: <7c42fe5a6158445e150e7d63991767e44fc36d3d.camel@decadent.org.uk> <20250709194443.lkevdn6m@linutronix.de> <20250710064136.rur6FoOU@linutronix.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In-Reply-To: On 2025-07-10 18:04:42 [+0300], Ville Syrj=C3=A4l=C3=A4 wrote: >=20 > When this was last discussed I suggested that there should be a > versions of the tracepoint macros that do the sampling outside > the lock, but that wasn't deemed acceptable for whatever reason. > I don't even know why the current macros are doing the > sampling while holding the lock... Any objections to me sending the batch and we figure out later how get the tracepoints for i915 enabled again on RT? It would be an improvement because you could take a vanilla kernel and enable PREEMPT_RT and you would only miss the tracepoints while now you can't enable i915 at all and XE either doesn't compile or spills warnings at runtime due to the code it shares with i915. Sebastian