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:   Wed, 5 Dec 2018 11:33:42 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To:     Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@linaro.org>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, mingo@redhat.com,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tracing: add cond_resched to ftrace_replace_code()
Message-ID: <20181205113342.00ed69a5@vmware.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <CADYN=9+-z=_5Gn9hJcGi8UwbNxS2jK+OXe5DE0pGxscuZA_8tg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20181204192903.8193-1-anders.roxell@linaro.org>
        <20181205095445.GA14317@arm.com>
        <CADYN=9+-z=_5Gn9hJcGi8UwbNxS2jK+OXe5DE0pGxscuZA_8tg@mail.gmail.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 Wed, 5 Dec 2018 11:43:12 +0100
Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@linaro.org> wrote:

> > > +     schedulable = !irqs_disabled() && !preempt_count();  
> >
> > Is there a reason not to use preemptible() here?  
> 
> As I understand it preemptible() is defined to 0 if
> CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT is disabled.
> Thats no good right ?

No it's not, which means this isn't a good approach. I have a much
better idea on how to solve this. I'll post a small patch set in a bit.

-- Steve