Re: [PATCH] rcu,ftrace: Fix ftrace recursion

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 10:36:20AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 13:33:40 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Kim reported that perf-ftrace made his box unhappy. It turns out that
> > commit:
> > 
> >   ff5c4f5cad33 ("rcu/tree: Mark the idle relevant functions noinstr")
> > 
> > removed one too many notrace. Probably due to there not being a helpful
> > comment.
> > 
> > Reinstate the notrace and add a comment to avoid loosing it again.
> > 
> > Fixes: ff5c4f5cad33 ("rcu/tree: Mark the idle relevant functions noinstr")
> > Reported-by: Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@xxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  kernel/rcu/tree.c | 5 ++++-
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > index ee5e595501e8..33020d84ec6b 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > @@ -1098,8 +1098,11 @@ noinstr bool __rcu_is_watching(void)
> >   * CPU can safely enter RCU read-side critical sections.  In other words,
> >   * if the current CPU is not in its idle loop or is in an interrupt or
> >   * NMI handler, return true.
> > + *
> > + * Must be notrace because __ftrace_ops_list_func() / ftrace_ops_assist_func()
> > + * will call this (for every function) outside of recursion protection.
> >   */
> > -bool rcu_is_watching(void)
> > +notrace bool rcu_is_watching(void)
> >  {
> >  	bool ret;
> >  
> 
> I think the patch I suggested is more suitable.

OK, I will let you guys fight it out.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul