On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 5:54 PM, Joel Fernandes <joe...@google.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org> wrote: >> On Mon, 4 Sep 2017 21:44:26 +0200 >> Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: >> >>> > I can change the name to something else, but at the moment I can't >>> > think of anything better. Could you suggest a better name? Also btw, >>> > 'critical timings' is the terminology used within the irqsoff tracer >>> > so this is in line with that. >>> >>> So 'critical section' is what some mis-guided people call the locked >>> region of a lock :-) Using it for something else is prone to cause more >>> confusion... >>> >>> I would simply call them what they are: irq_disable,irq_enable >>> preempt_disable,preempt_enable. >> >> Yes please. The "critical section" naming came from the code that was >> from the latency tracer days of the real time patch (pre-ftrace). The >> irqsoff tracer has the least modification from the original code, and >> probably should be rewritten one of these days. > > Sounds good to me. For the subsystem, could you guys suggest a name? I > was thinking "atomic_section"? > > Something like: > > subsystem: atomic_section > events: > irqsoff_disable > irqsoff_enable > preemptoff_disable > preemptoff_enable > > and additionally (to do what my patch does): > preemptirqsoff_enable > preemptirqsoff_disable
Apologies, I meant (without the "off"): subsystem: atomic_section events: irqs_disable irqs_enable preempt_disable preempt_enable and additionally (similar to what my patch does): preemptirq_enable preemptirq_disable Could you let me know if we are in agreement about this naming? thanks, -Joel
