* Rik van Riel <r...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 05/07/2015 08:29 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Frederic Weisbecker <fweis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>> We cannot take the lock_trace(task) from irq context, and we
> >>>> probably do not need to anyway, since we do not care about a
> >>>> precise stack trace for the task.
> >>>
> >>> So one worry with this and similar approaches of statistically
> >>> detecting user mode would be the fact that on the way out to
> >>> user-space we don't really destroy the previous call trace - we
> >>> just pop off the stack (non-destructively), restore RIPs and are
> >>> gone.
> >>>
> >>> We'll need that percpu flag I suspect.
> >>
> >> Note we have the context tracking state which tells where the
> >> current task is: user/system/guest.
> >
> > Yes, but that overhead is what I'm suggesting we get rid of, I thought
> > Rik was trying to find a mechanism that would be independent of that?
>
> One thing at a time :)
>
> I am working on the timer sampling stuff, which should be easy to
> adapt to a different user/system/guest/irq/softirq/... tracking
> thing, if somebody else comes up with a more efficient way to do
> that.
So if you make the timer sampling use a percpu variable, and set that
variable from the existing callbacks, then we could do this gradually:
first the timer sampling uses the flag, then RCU could use it, and
finally we could push it out to minimal assembly code.
But it's important to start out with a percpu flag to track this all.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
