From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752034AbaHJB3c (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Aug 2014 21:29:32 -0400 Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.151]:59047 "EHLO e33.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751632AbaHJB3b (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Aug 2014 21:29:31 -0400 Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2014 18:29:24 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, josh@joshtriplett.org, tglx@linutronix.de, rostedt@goodmis.org, dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com, dvhart@linux.intel.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com, bobby.prani@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 tip/core/rcu 1/9] rcu: Add call_rcu_tasks() Message-ID: <20140810012924.GO5821@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20140731215445.GA21933@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1406843709-23396-1-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140808191326.GE3935@laptop> <20140808205826.GG5821@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140809061514.GK9918@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20140809160137.GJ5821@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140809181920.GO9918@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20140809182400.GJ3588@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140809182400.GJ3588@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 14081001-0928-0000-0000-000003F32FF6 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Aug 09, 2014 at 08:24:00PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Sat, Aug 09, 2014 at 08:19:20PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > How about we simply assume 'idle' code, as defined by the rcu idle hooks > > are safe? Why do we want to bend over backwards to cover this? > > The thing is, we already have the special rcu trace hooks for tracing > inside this rcu-idle section, so why go beyond this now? I have to defer to Steven and Masami on this one, but I would guess that they want the ability to trace the idle loop for the same reasons they stated earlier. Thanx, Paul