From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758559AbeD0PmT (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Apr 2018 11:42:19 -0400 Received: from mail.efficios.com ([167.114.142.138]:57376 "EHLO mail.efficios.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757457AbeD0PmQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Apr 2018 11:42:16 -0400 Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 11:42:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Mathieu Desnoyers To: rostedt Cc: Joel Fernandes , linux-kernel , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Tom Zanussi , Namhyung Kim , Thomas Gleixner , Boqun Feng , "Paul E. McKenney" , fweisbec , Randy Dunlap , Masami Hiramatsu , kbuild test robot , baohong liu , vedang patel , kernel-team Message-ID: <362165882.5842.1524843735295.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> In-Reply-To: <20180427104747.2d965925@gandalf.local.home> References: <20180427042656.190746-1-joelaf@google.com> <1169911546.5820.1524839189395.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <20180427104747.2d965925@gandalf.local.home> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] tracepoint: Introduce tracepoint callbacks executing with preempt on MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [167.114.142.138] X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.8.8_GA_2009 (ZimbraWebClient - FF52 (Linux)/8.8.8_GA_2009) Thread-Topic: tracepoint: Introduce tracepoint callbacks executing with preempt on Thread-Index: BH5HvqWk/LjMYiOaANkWtrwYKN04ig== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org ----- On Apr 27, 2018, at 10:47 AM, rostedt rostedt@goodmis.org 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. I see that ftrace explicitly disables preemption in its ring buffer code. FWIW, this is redundant when called from sched-rcu tracepoints and from kprobes which adds unnecessary performance overhead. LTTng expects preemption to be disabled when invoked. I can adapt on my side as needed, but would prefer not to have redundant preemption disabling for probes hooking on sched-rcu tracepoints (which is the common case). Do perf callbacks expect preemption to be disabled ? Thanks, Mathieu -- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com