Re: [PATCH 1/2] tracing/function-return-tracer: Make the function return tracer lockless

[Andi Kleen]

Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
O

> _ The only race could happen between the current thread and an interrupt. If an
>   interrupt is raised, it will increase the index of the return stack storage and
>   then execute until the end of the tracing to finally free the index it used.
>   We don't need to disable irqs.
>
> This is theorical. In practice, I've tested it with a two-core SMP and had no
> problem at all. Perhaps -tip testing could confirm it.

The problem I think is that you assume the ++ is atomic against
interrupts, which is not guaranteed by the C compiler. e.g.
it would be perfectly legal for the compiler to generate code like

local register i
i = index;
write to index'ed array using i
                            <--------- interrupt here would overwrite data
...
index = i + 1;

You would need to convert the index access to a "local_add_return()" and 
possibly also add memory barriers.

-Andi

-- 
ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
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/