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

[Lai Jiangshan]

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).

It hardly happen ...
This doesn't mean it'll never happen.

> 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.
> 
> 

It's not normal behavior, preempt_schedule() will not call
preempt_schedule() recursively in any situation when trace is off.

Here, preempt_schedule() is called from __trace_graph_return()
when trace_function_graph is on.

preempt_schedule()
  __trace_graph_return()
    preempt_schedule()
      __trace_graph_return()
        ....

So, it's a real tracing recursion.
It hurts the stack.







--
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/