From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=fsZL=42=vger.kernel.org=linux-kernel-owner@kernel.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
	aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,
	MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0
Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99])
	by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFA57C10F25
	for <linux-kernel@archiver.kernel.org>; Mon,  9 Mar 2020 19:09:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67])
	by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9724222525
	for <linux-kernel@archiver.kernel.org>; Mon,  9 Mar 2020 19:09:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1727591AbgCITJo (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@archiver.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 9 Mar 2020 15:09:44 -0400
Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:50474 "EHLO mail.kernel.org"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1727431AbgCITJn (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 9 Mar 2020 15:09:43 -0400
Received: from gandalf.local.home (cpe-66-24-58-225.stny.res.rr.com [66.24.58.225])
        (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
        (No client certificate requested)
        by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 13EF8222D9;
        Mon,  9 Mar 2020 19:09:42 +0000 (UTC)
Date:   Mon, 9 Mar 2020 15:09:40 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        paulmck <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        "Joel Fernandes, Google" <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Instrumentation and RCU
Message-ID: <20200309150940.26730dee@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <1851876075.21840.1583779960064.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
References: <87mu8p797b.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
        <1403546357.21810.1583779060302.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
        <20200309144427.0ce0eabc@gandalf.local.home>
        <1851876075.21840.1583779960064.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.3 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 14:52:40 -0400 (EDT)
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote:

> And when I say "go back to plain RCU", I really mean removing use of SRCU
> from the tracepoints until we have other purposes for it (e.g. taking
> faults within specific tracepoint probes such as syscall enter/exit).

Actually, with both you and Alexei talking about having a sleeping
tracepoint callback, where we can add a can sleep check (but not in the
DO_TRACE macro, I would think that registered sleeping callbacks would be
its own callback), I would think we do not want to remove the SRCU usage.

-- Steve