Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 4

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 11:14:55PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 02/04/2015 05:53 PM, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> > The architecture-specific switch_mm() function can be called by offline
> > CPUs, but includes event tracing, which cannot be legally carried out
> > on offline CPUs.  This results in a lockdep-RCU splat.  This commit fixes
> > this splat by omitting the tracing when the CPU is offline.
> ...
> >>> >> >                 load_cr3(next->pgd);
> >>> >> > -               trace_tlb_flush(TLB_FLUSH_ON_TASK_SWITCH, TLB_FLUSH_ALL);
> >>> >> > +               if (cpu_online(smp_processor_id()))
> >>> >> > +                       trace_tlb_flush(TLB_FLUSH_ON_TASK_SWITCH, TLB_FLUSH_ALL);
> 
> Is this, perhaps, something that we should be doing in the generic trace
> code so that all of the trace users don't have to worry about it?  Also,
> this patch will add overhead to the code when tracing is off.  It would
> be best if we could manage to make the cpu_online() check only in the
> cases where the tracepoint is on.

I considered doing this in the _rcuidle piece of the trace code, but
unlike the RCU idle exit/entry in the _rcuidle stuff, the work required
to get through the RCU online/offline code is pretty heavyweight.
You end up having 16 CPUs contending for an rcu_node lock, for example.

But maybe you are instead suggesting pushing only the cpu_online() check
into the trace infrastructure.  If so, fair point, and I will take a
look at this.

							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/