[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2204190826500.1508@somnus>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 08:28:30 +0200 (CEST)
From: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Benedikt Spranger <b.spranger@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu/torture: Change order of warning and trace dump
On Mon, 18 Apr 2022, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 11:09:15AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 05:19:03PM +0200, Anna-Maria Behnsen wrote:
> > > Dumping a big ftrace buffer could lead to a RCU stall. So there is the
> > > ftrace buffer and the stall information which needs to be printed. When
> > > there is additionaly a WARN_ON() which describes the reason for the ftrace
> > > buffer dump and the WARN_ON() is executed _after_ ftrace buffer dump, the
> > > information get lost in the middle of the RCU stall information.
> > >
> > > Therefore print WARN_ON() message before dumping the ftrace buffer in
> > > rcu_torture_writer().
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
> > > Reviewed-by: Benedikt Spranger <b.spranger@...utronix.de>
> >
> > Hello, Anna-Maria!
> >
> > Good point, but we get caught out either way. Either we take the chance
> > of losing the WARN() message as you say, or we take the chance of the
> > activity in the WARN() message overwriting needed information in the
> > trace buffer.
> >
> > Would it work to shut off tracing, do the WARN(), and only then do the
> > rcu_ftrace_dump()?
>
> For example, as shown the the updated patch below currently queued on -rcu
> for further review and testing?
>
> If this is problematic, please let me know!
>
Hi Paul,
sorry for the late reply - I was busy with other things last week...
This solution is totally fine for me!
Thanks,
Anna-Maria
Powered by blists - more mailing lists