Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.38 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.38;
Date:   Tue, 21 Nov 2023 08:45:22 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Michael Jeanson <mjeanson@efficios.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] tracing: Introduce faultable tracepoints
Message-ID: <fc50b15e-8ad1-4ed5-b833-fd3b72c0aa0e@paulmck-laptop>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <20231120205418.334172-1-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
 <20231120205418.334172-2-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
 <20231120214742.GC8262@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <62c6e37c-88cc-43f7-ac3f-1c14059277cc@paulmck-laptop>
 <20231120222311.GE8262@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <cfc4b94e-8076-4e44-a8a7-2fd42dd9f2f2@paulmck-laptop>
 <20231121084706.GF8262@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <a0ac5f77-411e-4562-9863-81196238f3f5@efficios.com>
 <20231121143647.GI8262@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20231121094444.04701bdc@gandalf.local.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231121094444.04701bdc@gandalf.local.home>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 09:44:44AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 15:36:47 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > 
> > Still utterly confused about what task-tracing rcu is and how it is
> > different from preemptible rcu.
> 
> Is this similar to synchronize_rcu_tasks()? As I understand that one (grace
> period continues until all tasks have voluntarily scheduled or gone into
> user space). But I'm a bit confused by synchronize_rcu_tasks_trace()?
> 
> Note, that for syncronize_rcu_tasks() the critical sections must not call
> schedule (although it is OK to be preempted).

The synchronize_rcu_tasks() and synchronize_rcu_tasks_trace() functions
are quite different, as noted elsewhere in this thread.

							Thanx, Paul