Re: call_rcu from trace_preempt

[Steven Rostedt]

On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 05:27:33 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 10:45:05PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On 6/15/15 7:14 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >
> > >Why do you believe that it is better to fix it within call_rcu()?
> > 
> > found it:
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > index 8cf7304b2867..a3be09d482ae 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > @@ -935,9 +935,9 @@ bool notrace rcu_is_watching(void)
> >  {
> >         bool ret;
> > 
> > -       preempt_disable();
> > +       preempt_disable_notrace();
> >         ret = __rcu_is_watching();
> > -       preempt_enable();
> > +       preempt_enable_notrace();
> >         return ret;
> >  }
> > 
> > the rcu_is_watching() and __rcu_is_watching() are already marked
> > notrace, so imo it's a good 'fix'.
> > What was happening is that the above preempt_enable was triggering
> > recursive call_rcu that was indeed messing 'rdp' that was
> > prepared by __call_rcu and before __call_rcu_core could use that.
> 
> > btw, also noticed that local_irq_save done by note_gp_changes
> > is partially redundant. In __call_rcu_core path the irqs are
> > already disabled.
> 

If rcu_is_watching() and __rcu_is_watching() are both marked as
notrace, it makes sense to use preempt_disable/enable_notrace() as it
otherwise defeats the purpose of the notrace markers on rcu_is_watching.

That is regardless of what the rest of this thread is about.

-- Steve
--
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/