On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 11:32 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 11:29 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Rename preempt_notifier to sched_notifier, move it from preempt.h to > > > sched.h, drop sched_ prefixes from ops names and make sched_notifier > > > always enabled. > > > > > > This is to prepare for adding more notification hooks. This patch > > > doesn't make any functional changes. > > > > The sched notifiers and the various event notifiers we have in the same > > codepaths should really be unified into a single callback framework. > > > > We have these _5_ callbacks: > > > > .... > > perf_event_task_sched_out(prev, next, cpu); > > .... > > fire_sched_out_notifiers(prev, next); > > .... > > trace_sched_switch(rq, prev, next); > > .... > > perf_event_task_sched_in(current, cpu_of(rq)); > > fire_sched_in_notifiers(current); > > .... > > > > That could be done with just two callbacks - one for sched-out, one for > > sched-in. > > > > The best way to do that would be to use two TRACE_EVENT() callbacks, > > make them unconditional and register to them. (with wrappers to make it > > all convenient to use) > > > > This requires some work but needs to be done. > > Ugh,.. it also makes TRACE_EVENT unconditional. > > That really wants a separate option.. What we could do is take regular > notifier lists and extend them to auto-generate a tracepoint when the > trace stuff is enabled or something. Also, there is this thing about direct and indirect function calls. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
