On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 12:26:32 -0400 Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > if (!(in_hardirq() || irqs_disabled()))
> >
>
> Yeah, probably.
>
> > , nothing more elegant / already existing / ...?
>
> It's not a common check. What would you call that?
Looks like Olek started the weekend already so let me a
From: Steven Rostedt
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2023 12:00:40 -0400
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 17:34:41 +0200
> Alexander Lobakin wrote:
[...]
>>> + level += !!(pc & (NMI_MASK));
>>> + level += !!(pc & (NMI_MASK | HARDIRQ_MASK));
>>> + level += !!(pc & (NMI_MASK | HARDIRQ_MASK | SOFTIRQ_OFFSET));
>>
From: Steven Rostedt
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2021 14:25:41 -0400
Sorry for such a necroposting :z
Just wanted to know if this is a bug, so that I could send a fix, or
intended behaviour.
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 14:20:33 -0400
> Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
>>> I think having one copy of that in a header is
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 18:06:07 +0200
Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> > Just because you disable interrupts does not mean you are in interrupt
> > context.
>
> Ah okay, thanks! IOW, if we want to check in some code that we're
> certainly have interrupts enabled and are not in the interrupt context,
>
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 17:34:41 +0200
Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> From: Steven Rostedt
> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2021 14:25:41 -0400
>
> Sorry for such a necroposting :z
> Just wanted to know if this is a bug, so that I could send a fix, or
> intended behaviour.
>
> > On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 14:20:33 -0400
On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 08:41:23 +0200
Petr Mladek wrote:
> Feel free to postpone this change. I do not want to complicate
> upstreaming the fix for stable. I am sorry if I already
> complicated it.
>
No problem. It's not that complicated of a merge fix. I'm sure Linus can
handle it ;-)
-- Steve
On Mon 2021-10-18 22:02:03, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 12:19:20 +0200
> Petr Mladek wrote:
>
> > > -
> > > bit = trace_get_context_bit() + start;
> > > if (unlikely(val & (1 << bit))) {
> > > /*
> > >* It could be that preempt_count has not been updated
On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 12:19:20 +0200
Petr Mladek wrote:
> > -
> > bit = trace_get_context_bit() + start;
> > if (unlikely(val & (1 << bit))) {
> > /*
> > * It could be that preempt_count has not been updated during
> > * a switch between contexts. Allow
On Mon 2021-10-18 09:50:27, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 12:19:20 +0200
> Petr Mladek wrote:
>
> > On Fri 2021-10-15 11:00:35, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > From: "Steven Rostedt (VMware)"
> > >
> > > While writing an email explaining the "bit = 0" logic for a discussion on
> > > m
On Fri 2021-10-15 11:00:35, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> From: "Steven Rostedt (VMware)"
>
> While writing an email explaining the "bit = 0" logic for a discussion on
> making ftrace_test_recursion_trylock() disable preemption, I discovered a
> path that makes the "not do the logic if bit is zero" uns
On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 12:19:20 +0200
Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Fri 2021-10-15 11:00:35, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > From: "Steven Rostedt (VMware)"
> >
> > While writing an email explaining the "bit = 0" logic for a discussion on
> > making ftrace_test_recursion_trylock() disable preemption, I discov
On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 20:24:59 +0200
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > @@ -206,11 +206,7 @@ DEFINE_OUTPUT_COPY(__output_copy_user,
> > arch_perf_out_copy_user)
> > static inline int get_recursion_context(int *recursion)
> > {
> > unsigned int pc = preempt_count();
>
> Although I think we can do w
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 02:20:33PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 20:04:29 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 01:58:06PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > Something like this:
> >
> > I think having one copy of that in a header is better than havin
On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 14:20:33 -0400
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > I think having one copy of that in a header is better than having 3
> > copies. But yes, something along them lines.
>
> I was just about to ask you about this patch ;-)
Except it doesn't build :-p (need to move the inlined function
On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 20:04:29 +0200
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 01:58:06PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > Something like this:
>
> I think having one copy of that in a header is better than having 3
> copies. But yes, something along them lines.
I was just about to ask yo
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 01:58:06PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Something like this:
I think having one copy of that in a header is better than having 3
copies. But yes, something along them lines.
On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 13:35:04 -0400
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 18:17:02 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 11:00:35AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > From: "Steven Rostedt (VMware)"
> > >
> > > While writing an email explaining the "bit = 0" logic
On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 18:17:02 +0200
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 11:00:35AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > From: "Steven Rostedt (VMware)"
> >
> > While writing an email explaining the "bit = 0" logic for a discussion on
>
> > bit = trace_get_context_bit() + start;
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 11:00:35AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> From: "Steven Rostedt (VMware)"
>
> While writing an email explaining the "bit = 0" logic for a discussion on
> bit = trace_get_context_bit() + start;
While there, you were also going to update that function to match/use
ge
From: "Steven Rostedt (VMware)"
While writing an email explaining the "bit = 0" logic for a discussion on
making ftrace_test_recursion_trylock() disable preemption, I discovered a
path that makes the "not do the logic if bit is zero" unsafe.
The recursion logic is done in hot paths like the func
20 matches
Mail list logo
