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 11:42:15 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
To:     rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     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>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.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 <kernel-team@android.com>
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
Thread-Topic: tracepoint: Introduce tracepoint callbacks executing with preempt on
Thread-Index: BH5HvqWk/LjMYiOaANkWtrwYKN04ig==
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

----- 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 <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.

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