Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 27 Apr 2018 08:38:26 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@linux.intel.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        fweisbec <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
        baohong liu <baohong.liu@intel.com>,
        vedang patel <vedang.patel@intel.com>, kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] tracepoint: Introduce tracepoint callbacks executing
 with preempt on
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <20180427042656.190746-1-joelaf@google.com>
 <1169911546.5820.1524839189395.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
 <20180427104747.2d965925@gandalf.local.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180427104747.2d965925@gandalf.local.home>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Message-Id: <20180427153826.GK26088@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 10:47:47AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 10:26:29 -0400 (EDT)
> Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> 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.

Are you really sure you want to increase your state space that much?

							Thanx, Paul