[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200205081921.34b19d9a@oasis.local.home>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2020 08:19:21 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Amol Grover <frextrite@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
Madhuparna Bhowmik <madhuparnabhowmik10@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing: Annotate ftrace_graph_hash pointer with __rcu
On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 08:14:09 -0500
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 05:11:10 -0800
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > I strongly recommend a comment stating why disabling preemption prevents
> > ftrace_graph_hash from going away. I see the synchronize_rcu() after
> > the rcu_assign_pointer() in ftrace_graph_release(), but I don't see
> > anything that waits on CPUs that RCU is not watching.
> >
> > Of course, event tracing -makes- RCU watch when needed, but if that
> > was set up, then lockdep would not have complained.
> >
> > So what am I missing?
>
> Keep looking in your INBOX and look at the patch I asked you to ack or
> complain about ;-)
Actually, looking at the code myself, it appears to be missing the
ftrace_sync. Thus, this is a bug, and requires the ftrace sync, as
synchronize_rcu() is not strong enough here.
Patch in process!
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists