From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from casper.infradead.org (casper.infradead.org [90.155.50.34]) (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 BBD45265CC9; Thu, 19 Jun 2025 08:48:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.50.34 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1750322904; cv=none; b=QqE12xMCO5l/2phfR2j0Hj+r3fxLJVvXPn8sTbAkkACXDEhAsaUiaAl2Loj6UySGw1h4KU53R1XTmLzq8pavAWQkx0gnIXGp6MK7FjYW66sP6zGNDAKUTBovWZTU9AZjrTLlW3aYvEx9AC/Mlz7WD0MggGuF8T4pXJ7sBAgYs2Q= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1750322904; c=relaxed/simple; bh=vww0wtuYapFk4A06ppyCbC9dlVIFOUMMAQV4XHfEuXM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=OKzYyM38pEl1F/6B9tvGk7Tlu8AIwYVuCjlnR4Q17eghWEXCCfPysrDNWXzcPJG8z/ioz14v7FinLqPEFObx2ZoulrvP0GuMwl3xtVurek+/PbeSEXYq7Ba9KHumBqdYQKkpsroPhmq/A8vd58kt+PhVJl2U57KB2olREnbIP30= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b=ToBAKOAR; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.50.34 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="ToBAKOAR" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=casper.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=vww0wtuYapFk4A06ppyCbC9dlVIFOUMMAQV4XHfEuXM=; b=ToBAKOAR/KSKlolXqPBhH8mhg+ soSiIdL67/PGAN1BaapkrSw7SgtTR+S2XL6WSjxZCiHEt570jrBMenh4sxkYSAuLIZQr6IPEyaZmT 1y3Zbim/djaSDskOXEODkjy/gG2TBjriJL+67SAUNLObYpV9uLL4RiCYgtYlygwdCJzzIY21p9MSF YBV/hemaC0jhHKN9cV+sdPfP8KwggnCm6yEo78xo0YpUVBcWO3Lx8dPhRb9n+Hq/3eMu33xkX9kXB 5CeMauG/mGaAMT3rkzgySxVjxHylEDA9DD5TaOiXpujyEP6q590uY2Rr7It1HYlKu27okse4Nuu7R FimoTX+g==; Received: from 2001-1c00-8d82-d000-266e-96ff-fe07-7dcc.cable.dynamic.v6.ziggo.nl ([2001:1c00:8d82:d000:266e:96ff:fe07:7dcc] helo=noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net) by casper.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1uSAwP-00000007vXx-448X; Thu, 19 Jun 2025 08:48:15 +0000 Received: by noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5B1393088F2; Thu, 19 Jun 2025 10:48:13 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 10:48:13 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Steven Rostedt Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, Masami Hiramatsu , Mathieu Desnoyers , Josh Poimboeuf , Ingo Molnar , Jiri Olsa , Namhyung Kim , Thomas Gleixner , Andrii Nakryiko , Indu Bhagat , "Jose E. Marchesi" , Beau Belgrave , Jens Remus , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 07/14] unwind_user/deferred: Make unwind deferral requests NMI-safe Message-ID: <20250619084813.GG1613633@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20250611005421.144238328@goodmis.org> <20250611010428.938845449@goodmis.org> <20250619083415.GZ1613376@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20250619043733.2a74d431@batman.local.home> <20250619084427.GA1613376@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250619084427.GA1613376@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 10:44:27AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Luckily, x86 dropped support for !CMPXCHG8B right along with !TSC. So on > x86 we good with timestamps, even on 32bit. Well, not entirely true, local_clock() is not guaranteed monotonic. So you might be in for quite a bit of hurt if you rely on that.