Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 15 Apr 2020 18:53:06 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
        Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: On trace_*_rcuidle functions in modules
Message-ID: <20200415185306.417c18c3@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20200415224214.GP2483@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <CALAqxLV4rM74wuzuZ+BkUi+keccxkAxv30N4vrFO7CVQ5vnT1A@mail.gmail.com>
        <20200415085348.5511a5fe@gandalf.local.home>
        <CALAqxLV1A6sOC1GWpFYXeBoDff0+AJgoOYK7NktcTdvX3kvAeg@mail.gmail.com>
        <20200415161424.584d07d3@gandalf.local.home>
        <CALAqxLU26PVFPSza5GceSF6gTVdzo_2D3G0dBp0KZXvAWFUktA@mail.gmail.com>
        <20200415164116.40564f2c@gandalf.local.home>
        <CALAqxLW6jqr38bk8pp-Hom2=MLm3coTmzCP8MMfrDvMfx388=Q@mail.gmail.com>
        <20200415174918.154a86d0@gandalf.local.home>
        <20200415220459.GE17661@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
        <20200415224214.GP2483@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
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, 16 Apr 2020 00:42:14 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 03:04:59PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > 
> > My guess is that invoking rcu_irq_enter() and rcu_irq_exit() around every
> > potential call into module code out of the PM code is a non-starter,
> > but I cannot prove that either way.  
> 
> Isn't that exactly what cpu_pm_notify() is doing?

That was originally my concern, but I didn't look at cpu_pm_notify(), until
I was about to add that to it ;-) Then noticed, it was already there
(making my last email rather confusing as I wrote half of it before seeing
this, and then continued that email after the fact).

-- Steve