Re: [PATCH] tracing, sched: mark preempt_schedule() notrace

[Lai Jiangshan]

Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 18 Aug 2009, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 04:01:57PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>>> Current preempt_schedule() is not marked notrace. It may be
>>> infinite recursion in __trace_graph_return().
>>>
>>> preempt_schedule()
>>>   __trace_graph_return()
>>>     ftrace_preempt_disable() (!!return false!!)
>>>     ftrace_preempt_enable()
>>>       preempt_enable_notrace()
>>>          preempt_schedule() (need_resched() may be true again)
>>
>>
>> It would happen in __trace_graph_return() , when preempt_schedule()
>> has finished its job. It's very unlikely the TIF_NEED_RESCHED is
>> set just after (because it has just been cleared).
>> But why not. In that case, preempt_schedule() is called again but it's
>> not a real tracing recursion.
>>
>> That seems like a normal behaviour actually.
> 
> In fact, this is actually something to be traced. I would not add a 
> notrace to it. This is not saving anything, the trace_graph_return does 
> not need to worry about stack overflow, since the return code already 
> freed the stack.
> 

You're right, I forgot to read trace_graph_return().
trace_graph_return() protects itself from recursion.

Since there is no may-recursive trace_func_graph_ret_t.
Just omit this patch.
Sorry for bothered you all.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/