On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 08:43:36PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: [snip] > On the tracing patch... That patch might be a good idea regardless, > but I bet that the reason that you felt the sudden need for it was due > to the loss of information in your eventual ->dynticks_nesting field. > After all, the value 0x1 might be an interrupt from idle, or it might > just as easily be a task running in the kernel at process level. True, however what really triggered me to do it was the existing code which does not distinguish between entry/exit from USER and IDLE. > The reason the patch might nevertheless be a good idea is that redundant > information can be helpful when debugging. Especially when debugging > new architecture-specific code, which is when RCU's dyntick-idle warnings > tend to find bugs. Sure, and also that it is more readable to ordinary human beings than "++=" and "--=" :-D. thanks, - Joel
