On 2/14/16, Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org> wrote: > On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 21:22:53 +0300 > Denis Kirjanov <k...@linux-powerpc.org> wrote: > >> >> diff --git a/include/trace/events/rcu.h b/include/trace/events/rcu.h >> index ef72c4a..5470f2f 100644 >> --- a/include/trace/events/rcu.h >> +++ b/include/trace/events/rcu.h >> @@ -435,6 +435,8 @@ TRACE_EVENT(rcu_callback, >> >> TP_ARGS(rcuname, rhp, qlen_lazy, qlen), >> >> + TP_CONDITION(cpu_online(raw_smp_processor_id())), >> + > > Besides the fact that this isn't a TRACE_EVENT_CONDITION, Isn't calling > rcu_callback() dangerous from an offline CPU?
That was the wrong patch, I've sent the v2. > > Or is calling a callback from an offline CPU OK? > > Perhaps it is OK, as it doesn't need to worry about its current CPU, > just the other CPUs. > > Paul? > > -- Steve > > >> TP_STRUCT__entry( >> __field(const char *, rcuname) >> __field(void *, rhp) > >
