Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] ftrace: Implement fs notification for tracing_max_latency
From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Wed Sep 04 2019 - 04:19:36 EST
On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 12:00:39AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> [ Resending since I messed up my last email's headers! ]
> On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 03:25:59PM +0200, Viktor Rosendahl wrote:
> > This patch implements the feature that the tracing_max_latency file,
> > e.g. /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/tracing_max_latency will receive
> > notifications through the fsnotify framework when a new latency is
> > available.
> > One particularly interesting use of this facility is when enabling
> > threshold tracing, through /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/tracing_thresh,
> > together with the preempt/irqsoff tracers. This makes it possible to
> > implement a user space program that can, with equal probability,
> > obtain traces of latencies that occur immediately after each other in
> > spite of the fact that the preempt/irqsoff tracers operate in overwrite
> > mode.
> Adding Paul since RCU faces similar situations, i.e. raising softirq risks
> scheduler deadlock in rcu_read_unlock_special() -- but RCU's solution is to
> avoid raising the softirq and instead use irq_work.
Which is right.
> I was wondering, if we can rename __raise_softirq_irqoff() to
> raise_softirq_irqoff_no_wake() and call that from places where there is risk
> of scheduler related deadlocks. Then I think this can be used from Viktor's
> code. Let us discuss - what would happen if the softirq is raised, but
> ksoftirqd is not awakened for this latency notification path? Is this really
> an issue considering the softirq will execute during the next interrupt exit?
You'd get unbounded latency for processing the softirq and warnings on
going idle with softirqs pending.
I really don't see why we should/want to be using softirq here.