On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 15:08:21 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 05:23:48PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:21:17 -0700 > > "Paul E. McKenney" <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > My worry is that we add another caller that doesn't disable interrupts > > > > or preemption. > > > > > > > > I could add a __stack_trace_disable() that skips the disabling of > > > > preemption, as the "__" usually denotes the call is "special". > > > > > > Given that interrupts are disabled at that point, and given also that > > > NMI skips stack tracing if growth is required, could we just leave > > > out the stack_tracer_disable() and stack_tracer_enable()? > > > > There may be other use cases. Hmm, maybe I'll just have it do a check > > to make sure preemption is disabled. Something like: > > > > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT)) > > WARN_ON_ONCE(!preempt_count()); > > This in the include/linux/ftrace.h file so that it can be inlined? > That makes sense to me. > Hah, I already had that part (inlining) written. It's a separate patch though. I'll post another series tomorrow. -- Steve
