[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080218194825.GF10471@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:48:25 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
Cc: prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mingo@...e.hu, Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
dipankar@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Markers Implementation for RCU Tracing - Ver II
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 01:47:31PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> K. Prasad wrote:
> > Hi Ingo,
> > Please accept these patches into the rt tree which convert the
> > existing RCU tracing mechanism for Preempt RCU and RCU Boost into
> > markers.
> >
> > These patches are based upon the 2.6.24-rc5-rt1 kernel tree.
> >
> > Along with marker transition, the RCU Tracing infrastructure has also
> > been modularised to be built as a kernel module, thereby enabling
> > runtime changes to the RCU Tracing infrastructure.
> >
> > Patch [1/2] - Patch that converts the Preempt RCU tracing in
> > rcupreempt.c into markers.
> >
> > Patch [1/2] - Patch that converts the Preempt RCU Boost tracing in
> > rcupreempt-boost.c into markers.
> >
>
> I have a technical problem with marker-based RCU tracing: It causes
> nasty recursions with latest multi-probe marker patches (sorry, no link
> at hand, can be found in latest LTTng, maybe also already in -mm). Those
> patches introduce a marker probe trampoline like this:
>
> void marker_probe_cb(const struct marker *mdata, void *call_private,
> const char *fmt, ...)
> {
> va_list args;
> char ptype;
>
> /*
> * rcu_read_lock does two things : disabling preemption to make sure the
> * teardown of the callbacks can be done correctly when they are in
> * modules and they insure RCU read coherency.
> */
> rcu_read_lock();
> preempt_disable();
> ...
>
> Can we do multi-probe with pure preempt_disable/enable protection? I
> guess it's fine with classic RCU, but what about preemptible RCU? Any
> suggestion appreciated!
If you substitute synchronize_sched() for synchronize_rcu(), this should
work fine. Of course, this approach would cause RCU tracing to degrade
latencies somewhat in -rt.
If tracing is using call_rcu(), we will need to add a call_sched()
or some such.
Thanx, Paul
> Jan
>
> PS: You will run into this issue if you try to marry latest -rt with
> latest LTTng. Straightforward workaround is to comment-out any RCU
> trace_mark occurrences.
>
> --
> Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT SE 2
> Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists