On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 09:59:07AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > 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. And those considerations did figure into my deciding that the tracing change was likely a good thing in any case. ;-) Thanx, Paul
