Re: [RFC PATCH 2/7] printk: Simple implementation for NMI backtracing

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 01:39:58PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > +void printk_nmi_backtrace_complete(void)
> > +{
> > +	struct nmi_seq_buf *s;
> > +	int len, cpu, i, last_i;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Now that all the NMIs have triggered, we can dump out their
> > +	 * back traces safely to the console.
> > +	 */
> > +	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> > +		s = &per_cpu(nmi_print_seq, cpu);
> > +		last_i = 0;
> > +
> > +		len = seq_buf_used(&s->seq);
> > +		if (!len)
> > +			continue;
> > +
> > +		/* Print line by line. */
> > +		for (i = 0; i < len; i++) {
> > +			if (s->buffer[i] == '\n') {
> > +				print_seq_line(s, last_i, i);
> > +				last_i = i + 1;
> > +			}
> > +		}
> > +		/* Check if there was a partial line. */
> > +		if (last_i < len) {
> > +			print_seq_line(s, last_i, len - 1);
> > +			pr_cont("\n");
> > +		}
> > +
> > +		/* Wipe out the buffer ready for the next time around. */
> > +		seq_buf_clear(&s->seq);
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	clear_bit(0, &nmi_print_flag);
> > +	smp_mb__after_atomic();
> 
> Is this really necessary. What is the mb synchronizing?
> 
> [ Added Peter Zijlstra to confirm it's not needed ]

It surely looks suspect; and it lacks a comment, which is a clear sign
its buggy.

Now it if tries to order the accesses to the seqbuf againt the clearing
of the bit one would have expected a _before_ barrier, not an _after_.

--
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/