Re: [patch 1/2] Linux Kernel Markers - Support Multiple Probes

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 02:45:06PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Andrew Morton (akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 14:21:00 -0500
> > Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > > > + */
> > > > > +void marker_probe_cb(const struct marker *mdata, void *call_private,
> > > > > +	const char *fmt, ...)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	va_list args;
> > > > > +	char ptype;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	preempt_disable();
> > > > 
> > > > What are the preempt_disable()s doing in here?
> > > > 
> > > > Unless I missed something obvious, a comment is needed here (at least).
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > They make sure the teardown of the callbacks can be done correctly when
> > > they are in modules and they insure RCU read coherency. Will add
> > > comment.
> > 
> > So shouldn't it be using rcu_read_lock()?  If that does not suit, should we
> > be adding new rcu primitives rather than open-coding and adding dependencies?
> 
> Hrm, yes, good point. Since there seems to be extra magic under
> __acquire(RCU);  and  rcu_read_acquire();, the the fact that I use
> rcu_barrier() for synchronization, we should. I'll change it.

(Sorry to show up so late...  It has been a bit crazy of late...)

The __acquire(RCU) and rcu_read_acquire() are strictly for the benefit
of sparse -- they allow it to detect mismatched rcu_read_lock() and
rcu_read_unlock() pairs.  (Restricted to a single function, but so
it goes.)

I don't claim to fully understand this code, so may be way off base.
However, it looks like you are relying on stop_machine(), which in
turn interacts with preempt_disable(), but -not- necessarily with
rcu_read_lock().  Now, your rcu_barrier() call -does- interact with
rcu_read_lock() correctly, but either you need the preempt_disable()s
to interact correctly with stop_machine(), or you need to update the
comments calling out dependency on stop_machine().

Or it might be that the RCU API needs a bit of expanding.  For example,
if you absolutely must use call_rcu(), and you also must absolutely
rely on stop_machine(), this might indicate that we need to add a
call_rcu_sched() as an asynchronous counterpart to synchronize_sched().
This would also require an rcu_sched_barrier() as well, to allow safe
unloading of modules using call_rcu_sched().

Or am I missing something?

							Thanx, Paul
--
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/