Re: [PATCH v12 3/3] tracing: Centralize preemptirq tracepoints and unify their usage

[Joel Fernandes]

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
>> >> >> It does start to seem like a show stopper :-(
>> >> >
>> >> > I suppose that an srcu_read_lock_nmi() and srcu_read_unlock_nmi() could
>> >> > be added, which would do atomic ops on sp->sda->srcu_lock_count.  Not sure
>> >> > whether this would be fast enough to be useful, but easy to provide:
>> >> >
>> >> > int __srcu_read_lock_nmi(struct srcu_struct *sp)  /* UNTESTED. */
>> >> > {
>> >> >         int idx;
>> >> >
>> >> >         idx = READ_ONCE(sp->srcu_idx) & 0x1;
>> >> >         atomic_inc(&sp->sda->srcu_lock_count[idx]);
>> >> >         smp_mb__after_atomic(); /* B */  /* Avoid leaking critical section. */
>> >> >         return idx;
>> >> > }
>> >> >
>> >> > void __srcu_read_unlock_nmi(struct srcu_struct *sp, int idx)
>> >> > {
>> >> >         smp_mb__before_atomic(); /* C */  /* Avoid leaking critical section. */
>> >> >         atomic_inc(&sp->sda->srcu_unlock_count[idx]);
>> >> > }
>> >> >
>> >> > With appropriate adjustments to also allow Tiny RCU to also work.
>> >> >
>> >> > Note that you have to use _nmi() everywhere, not just in NMI handlers.
>> >> > In fact, the NMI handlers are the one place you -don't- need to use
>> >> > _nmi(), strangely enough.
>> >> >
>> >> > Might be worth a try -- smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic() is a no-op on
>> >> > some architectures, for example.
>> >>
>> >> Continuing Steve's question on regular interrupts, do we need to use
>> >> this atomic_inc API for regular interrupts as well? So I guess
>> >
>> > If NMIs use one srcu_struct and non-NMI uses another, the current
>> > srcu_read_lock() and srcu_read_unlock() will work just fine.  If any given
>> > srcu_struct needs both NMI and non-NMI readers, then we really do need
>> > __srcu_read_lock_nmi() and __srcu_read_unlock_nmi() for that srcu_struct.
>>
>> Yes, I believe as long as in_nmi() works reliably, we can use the
>> right srcu_struct (NMI vs non-NMI) and it would be fine.
>>
>> Going through this thread, it sounds though that this_cpu_inc may not
>> be reliable on all architectures even for non-NMI interrupts and
>> local_inc may be the way to go.
>
> My understanding is that this_cpu_inc() is defined to handle interrupts,
> so any architecture on which it is unreliable needs to fix its bug.  ;-)

Yes that's my understanding as well.

Then may be I'm missing something about yours/Steve's conversations in
the morning, about why we need bother with the local_inc then. So the
current SRCU code with the separate NMI handle should work fine (for
future merge windows) as long as we're using a separate srcu_struct
for NMI. :-)

>
>> For next merge window (not this one), lets do that then? Paul, if you
>> could provide me an SRCU API that uses local_inc, then I believe that
>> coupled with this patch should be all that's needed:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/972657/
>>
>> Steve did express concern though if in_nmi() works reliably (i.e.
>> tracepoint doesn't fire from "thunk" code before in_nmi() is
>> available). Any thoughts on that Steve?
>
> Agreed, not the upcoming merge window.  But we do need to work out
> exactly what is the right way to do this.

Agreed, thanks!

 - Joel