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

From: Joel Fernandes
Date: Thu Feb 13 2020 - 17:59:00 EST

Next message: Greg Kroah-Hartman: "Re: [PATCH 4.9 083/116] btrfs: free block groups after freeing fs trees"
Previous message: Greg Kroah-Hartman: "Re: [PATCH 4.14 129/173] btrfs: flush write bio if we loop in extent_write_cache_pages"
In reply to: Paul E. McKenney: "Re: [PATCH v2 3/9] rcu,tracing: Create trace_rcu_{enter,exit}()"
Next in thread: Steven Rostedt: "Re: [PATCH v2 3/9] rcu,tracing: Create trace_rcu_{enter,exit}()"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 01:48:59PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 04:19:30PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 12:54:42PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 03:44:44PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 10:56:12AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > > > So something like this, then? This is untested, probably doesn't even
> > > > > build, and could use some careful review from both Peter and Steve,
> > > > > at least. As in the below is the second version of the patch, the first
> > > > > having been missing a couple of important "!" characters.
> > > >
> > > > I removed the static from rcu_nmi_enter()/exit() as it is called from
> > > > outside, that makes it build now. Updated below is Paul's diff. I also added
> > > > NOKPROBE_SYMBOL() to rcu_nmi_exit() to match rcu_nmi_enter() since it seemed
> > > > asymmetric.
> > >
> > > My compiler complained about the static and the __always_inline, so I
> > > fixed those. But please help me out on adding the NOKPROBE_SYMBOL()
> > > to rcu_nmi_exit(). What bad thing happens if we leave this on only
> > > rcu_nmi_enter()?
> >
> > It seemed odd to me we were not allowing kprobe on the rcu_nmi_enter() but
> > allowing it on exit (from a code reading standpoint) so my reaction was to
> > add it to both, but we could probably keep that as a separate
> > patch/discussion since it is slightly unrelated to the patch.. Sorry to
> > confuse the topic.
>
> Actually and perhaps unusually, I was not being sarcastic, but was instead
> asking a serious question. Is the current code correct? Should the
> current NOKPROBE_SYMBOL() be removed? Should the other NOKPROBE_SYMBOL()
> be added? Something else? And either way, why?

Oh ok, it was a fair question. Seems Steve nailed it, only the
rcu_nmi_enter() needs NOKPROBE, although as you mentioned in the other
thread, it would be good to get Masami's eyes on it since he introduced the
NOKPROBE.

thanks,

- Joel

> Thanx, Paul
>
> > thanks,
> >
> > - Joel
> >
> >
> > > Thanx, Paul
> > >
> > > > ---8<-----------------------
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > index d91c9156fab2e..bbcc7767f18ee 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > @@ -614,16 +614,18 @@ void rcu_user_enter(void)
> > > > }
> > > > #endif /* CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL */
> > > >
> > > > -/*
> > > > +/**
> > > > + * rcu_nmi_exit - inform RCU of exit from NMI context
> > > > + *
> > > > * If we are returning from the outermost NMI handler that interrupted an
> > > > * RCU-idle period, update rdp->dynticks and rdp->dynticks_nmi_nesting
> > > > * to let the RCU grace-period handling know that the CPU is back to
> > > > * being RCU-idle.
> > > > *
> > > > - * If you add or remove a call to rcu_nmi_exit_common(), be sure to test
> > > > + * If you add or remove a call to rcu_nmi_exit(), be sure to test
> > > > * with CONFIG_RCU_EQS_DEBUG=y.
> > > > */
> > > > -static __always_inline void rcu_nmi_exit_common(bool irq)
> > > > +__always_inline void rcu_nmi_exit(void)
> > > > {
> > > > struct rcu_data *rdp = this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data);
> > > >
> > > > @@ -651,25 +653,15 @@ static __always_inline void rcu_nmi_exit_common(bool irq)
> > > > trace_rcu_dyntick(TPS("Startirq"), rdp->dynticks_nmi_nesting, 0, atomic_read(&rdp->dynticks));
> > > > WRITE_ONCE(rdp->dynticks_nmi_nesting, 0); /* Avoid store tearing. */
> > > >
> > > > - if (irq)
> > > > + if (!in_nmi())
> > > > rcu_prepare_for_idle();
> > > >
> > > > rcu_dynticks_eqs_enter();
> > > >
> > > > - if (irq)
> > > > + if (!in_nmi())
> > > > rcu_dynticks_task_enter();
> > > > }
> > > > -
> > > > -/**
> > > > - * rcu_nmi_exit - inform RCU of exit from NMI context
> > > > - *
> > > > - * If you add or remove a call to rcu_nmi_exit(), be sure to test
> > > > - * with CONFIG_RCU_EQS_DEBUG=y.
> > > > - */
> > > > -void rcu_nmi_exit(void)
> > > > -{
> > > > - rcu_nmi_exit_common(false);
> > > > -}
> > > > +NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(rcu_nmi_exit);
> > > >
> > > > /**
> > > > * rcu_irq_exit - inform RCU that current CPU is exiting irq towards idle
> > > > @@ -693,7 +685,7 @@ void rcu_nmi_exit(void)
> > > > void rcu_irq_exit(void)
> > > > {
> > > > lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
> > > > - rcu_nmi_exit_common(true);
> > > > + rcu_nmi_exit();
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > /*
> > > > @@ -777,7 +769,7 @@ void rcu_user_exit(void)
> > > > #endif /* CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL */
> > > >
> > > > /**
> > > > - * rcu_nmi_enter_common - inform RCU of entry to NMI context
> > > > + * rcu_nmi_enter - inform RCU of entry to NMI context
> > > > * @irq: Is this call from rcu_irq_enter?
> > > > *
> > > > * If the CPU was idle from RCU's viewpoint, update rdp->dynticks and
> > > > @@ -786,10 +778,10 @@ void rcu_user_exit(void)
> > > > * long as the nesting level does not overflow an int. (You will probably
> > > > * run out of stack space first.)
> > > > *
> > > > - * If you add or remove a call to rcu_nmi_enter_common(), be sure to test
> > > > + * If you add or remove a call to rcu_nmi_enter(), be sure to test
> > > > * with CONFIG_RCU_EQS_DEBUG=y.
> > > > */
> > > > -static __always_inline void rcu_nmi_enter_common(bool irq)
> > > > +__always_inline void rcu_nmi_enter(void)
> > > > {
> > > > long incby = 2;
> > > > struct rcu_data *rdp = this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data);
> > > > @@ -807,12 +799,12 @@ static __always_inline void rcu_nmi_enter_common(bool irq)
> > > > */
> > > > if (rcu_dynticks_curr_cpu_in_eqs()) {
> > > >
> > > > - if (irq)
> > > > + if (!in_nmi())
> > > > rcu_dynticks_task_exit();
> > > >
> > > > rcu_dynticks_eqs_exit();
> > > >
> > > > - if (irq)
> > > > + if (!in_nmi())
> > > > rcu_cleanup_after_idle();
> > > >
> > > > incby = 1;
> > > > @@ -834,14 +826,6 @@ static __always_inline void rcu_nmi_enter_common(bool irq)
> > > > rdp->dynticks_nmi_nesting + incby);
> > > > barrier();
> > > > }
> > > > -
> > > > -/**
> > > > - * rcu_nmi_enter - inform RCU of entry to NMI context
> > > > - */
> > > > -void rcu_nmi_enter(void)
> > > > -{
> > > > - rcu_nmi_enter_common(false);
> > > > -}
> > > > NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(rcu_nmi_enter);
> > > >
> > > > /**
> > > > @@ -869,7 +853,7 @@ NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(rcu_nmi_enter);
> > > > void rcu_irq_enter(void)
> > > > {
> > > > lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
> > > > - rcu_nmi_enter_common(true);
> > > > + rcu_nmi_enter();
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > /*

Next message: Greg Kroah-Hartman: "Re: [PATCH 4.9 083/116] btrfs: free block groups after freeing fs trees"
Previous message: Greg Kroah-Hartman: "Re: [PATCH 4.14 129/173] btrfs: flush write bio if we loop in extent_write_cache_pages"
In reply to: Paul E. McKenney: "Re: [PATCH v2 3/9] rcu,tracing: Create trace_rcu_{enter,exit}()"
Next in thread: Steven Rostedt: "Re: [PATCH v2 3/9] rcu,tracing: Create trace_rcu_{enter,exit}()"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]