Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 25 Apr 2022 10:56:00 -0400 | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] rcu: ftrace: avoid tracing a few functions executed in stop machine |
| |
On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 18:28:44 +0800 Patrick Wang <patrick.wang.shcn@gmail.com> wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Patrick Wang <patrick.wang.shcn@gmail.com> > --- > v1->v2: > - Modify log message. > > kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h > index c8ba0fe17267..971bb6a00ede 100644 > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h > @@ -460,7 +460,7 @@ static bool rcu_preempt_has_tasks(struct rcu_node *rnp) > * be quite short, for example, in the case of the call from > * rcu_read_unlock_special(). > */ > -static void > +notrace static void
I'm fine with the change, but to be consistent with the rest of the kernel, static needs to come before notrace.
Either:
static notrace void
or even (some places have):
static void notrace
but "static" should always be first.
-- Steve
> rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_irqrestore(struct task_struct *t, unsigned long flags) > { > bool empty_exp; > @@ -581,7 +581,7 @@ rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_irqrestore(struct task_struct *t, unsigned long flags) > * is disabled. This function cannot be expected to understand these > * nuances, so the caller must handle them. > */ > -static bool rcu_preempt_need_deferred_qs(struct task_struct *t) > +notrace static bool rcu_preempt_need_deferred_qs(struct task_struct *t) > { > return (__this_cpu_read(rcu_data.cpu_no_qs.b.exp) || > READ_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special.s)) && > @@ -595,7 +595,7 @@ static bool rcu_preempt_need_deferred_qs(struct task_struct *t) > * evaluate safety in terms of interrupt, softirq, and preemption > * disabling. > */ > -static void rcu_preempt_deferred_qs(struct task_struct *t) > +notrace static void rcu_preempt_deferred_qs(struct task_struct *t) > { > unsigned long flags; >
| |