[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4b4be164-0095-90bc-a193-faa7100558d2@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 10:36:16 +0800
From: 王贇 <yun.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>, Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>,
Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...nel.org>, linux-csky@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ftrace: disable preemption on the testing of
recursion
On 2021/10/13 上午10:27, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 09:50:17 +0800
> 王贇 <yun.wang@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>
>>>> - preempt_enable_notrace();
>>>> ftrace_test_recursion_unlock(bit);
>>>> }
>>>
>>> I don't like this change much. We have preempt_disable there not because
>>> of ftrace_test_recursion, but because of RCU. ftrace_test_recursion was
>>> added later. Yes, it would work with the change, but it would also hide
>>> things which should not be hidden in my opinion.
>>
>> Not very sure about the backgroup stories, but just found this in
>> 'Documentation/trace/ftrace-uses.rst':
>>
>> Note, on success,
>> ftrace_test_recursion_trylock() will disable preemption, and the
>> ftrace_test_recursion_unlock() will enable it again (if it was previously
>> enabled).
>
> Right that part is to be fixed by what you are adding here.
>
> The point that Miroslav is complaining about is that the preemption
> disabling is special in this case, and not just from the recursion
> point of view, which is why the comment is still required.
My bad... the title do confusing people, will rewrite it.
Regards,
Michael Wang
>
> -- Steve
>
>
>>
>> Seems like this lock pair was supposed to take care the preemtion itself?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists