[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <VI1PR02MB623731066685B6E249F71A3189399@VI1PR02MB6237.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2022 14:02:49 +0000
From: Leonid Ravich <leonid.ravich@...anetworks.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC: "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Yigal Korman <yigal.korman@...anetworks.com>,
"linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Leon Ravich <lravich@...il.com>
Subject: Re: BUG: ib_mad ftrace event unsupported migration
> > > before starting throwing some patch into the the air I would like to align with you the approach we should take here.
> > >
> > > my suggestion here :
> > >- ftrace infra should verify no migration happen (end and start happens on same CPU) in case not we will throw warning for the issue .
> >
> >The scheduler should have. On entering the ring buffer code
> >ring_buffer_lock_reserver() it disables preemption and does not
> >re-enable it until ring_buffer_unlock_commit().
> >
> >The only way to migrate is if you re-enable preemption. WHICH IS A
> >BUG!
>So what on earth did that?
>I'm guessing some driver's query_pkey op, but AFAIK we don't have any
>explicit pre-emption reenablements in the code - unless it is sneaky..
trace infra uses preempt_disable_notrace/preempt_enable_notrace to disable/enable preemtion but my kernel compiled without CONFIG_PREEMPTION so this functions are only barriers - looks like the idea behind was to avoid involuntary preemtion but in our case it is a voluntary (there is a wait_for_completion in the query_pkey rabbit hole).
so no scheduler here to warn about illegal migration.
>Leonid what driver are you testing?
mlx5 - (MLNX_OFED-5.3-1.0.0.1)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists