Re: [PATCH v2 3/9] rcu,tracing: Create trace_rcu_{enter,exit}()

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 05:51:38AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> The reason for the irq argument is to avoid invoking
> rcu_prepare_for_idle() and rcu_dynticks_task_enter() from NMI context
> from rcu_nmi_exit_common().  Similarly, we need to avoid invoking
> rcu_dynticks_task_exit() and rcu_cleanup_after_idle() from NMI context
> from rcu_nmi_enter_common().

Aaah, I see. I didn't grep hard enough earlier today (I only found
stubs). Yes, those take locks, we mustn't call them from NMI context.

> It might well be that I could make these functions be NMI-safe, but
> rcu_prepare_for_idle() in particular would be a bit ugly at best.
> So, before looking into that, I have a question.  Given these proposed
> changes, will rcu_nmi_exit_common() and rcu_nmi_enter_common() be able
> to just use in_nmi()?

That _should_ already be the case today. That is, if we end up in a
tracer and in_nmi() is unreliable we're already screwed anyway.