[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180907073448.GL24106@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2018 09:34:48 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk/tracing: Do not trace printk_nmi_enter()
On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 09:33:34PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> do_idle {
>
> [interrupts enabled]
>
> <interrupt> [interrupts disabled]
> TRACE_IRQS_OFF [lockdep says irqs off]
> [...]
> TRACE_IRQS_IRET
> test if pt_regs say return to interrupts enabled [yes]
> TRACE_IRQS_ON [lockdep says irqs are on]
>
> <nmi>
> nmi_enter() {
> printk_nmi_enter() [traced by ftrace]
> [ hit ftrace breakpoint ]
> <breakpoint exception>
> TRACE_IRQS_OFF [lockdep says irqs off]
> [...]
> TRACE_IRQS_IRET [return from breakpoint]
> test if pt_regs say interrupts enabled [no]
> [iret back to interrupt]
> [iret back to code]
>
> tick_nohz_idle_enter() {
>
> lockdep_assert_irqs_enabled() [lockdep say no!]
Isn't the problem that we muck with the IRQ state from NMI context? We
shouldn't be doing that.
The thing is, since we trace the IRQ state from within IRQ-disable,
since that's the only IRQ-safe option, it is very much not NMI-safe.
Your patch might avoid the symptom, but I don't think it cures the
fundamental problem.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists