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:   Thu, 12 Jul 2018 09:37:47 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Julia Cartwright <julia@ni.com>,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Thomas Glexiner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@linux.intel.com>,
        kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 5/7] tracing: Centralize preemptirq tracepoints and
 unify their usage
Message-ID: <20180712093747.4fca1642@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20180712083805.GA67912@joelaf.mtv.corp.google.com>
References: <20180628182149.226164-1-joel@joelfernandes.org>
        <20180628182149.226164-6-joel@joelfernandes.org>
        <20180711131256.GH2476@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
        <20180711091944.4d8e78ef@gandalf.local.home>
        <20180712083805.GA67912@joelaf.mtv.corp.google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 01:38:05 -0700
Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> wrote:

> So actually with or without the clean up, I don't see any issues with
> dropping lockdep_recursing in my tests at the moment. I'm not sure something
> else changed between then and now causing the issue to go away. I can include
> Peter's clean up in my series though if he's Ok with it since you guys agree
> its a good clean up anyway. Would you prefer I did that, and then also
> dropped the lockdep_recursing checks? Or should I keep the
> lockdep_recursing() checks just to be safe? Do you see cases where you want
> irqsoff tracing while lockdep_recursing() is true?

I say rewrite it as per Peter's suggestion. Perhaps even add credit to
Peter like:

Cleaned-up-code-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>

  ;-)

And yes, I would recommend dropping the lockdep_recursion() if you
can't trigger issues from within your tests. If it shows up later, we
can always add it back.

Thanks!

-- Steve