[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y9D4PIZacXgWapWX@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2023 10:37:00 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, mingo@...nel.org,
will@...nel.org, boqun.feng@...il.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org,
hpa@...or.com, seanjc@...gle.com, pbonzini@...hat.com,
jgross@...e.com, srivatsa@...il.mit.edu, amakhalov@...are.com,
pv-drivers@...are.com, mhiramat@...nel.org, wanpengli@...cent.com,
vkuznets@...hat.com, boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, rafael@...nel.org,
daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de, bristot@...hat.com,
vschneid@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] ftrace/x86: Warn and ignore graph tracing when RCU
is disabled
On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 05:12:14PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 03:44:35PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 05:07:53PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > > Actually, perhaps we can just add this, and all you need to do is create
> > > and set CONFIG_NO_RCU_TRACING (or some other name).
> >
> > Elsewhere I've used CONFIG_ARCH_WANTS_NO_INSTR for this.
>
> Yes please; if we use CONFIG_ARCH_WANTS_NO_INSTR then arm64 will get this "for
> free" once we add the missing checks (which I assume we need) in our ftrace_prepare_return().
Aye.
> > Anyway, I took it for a spin and it .... doesn't seems to do the job.
> >
> > With my patch the first splat is
> >
> > "RCU not on for: cpuidle_poll_time+0x0/0x70"
> >
> > While with yours I seems to get the endless:
> >
> > "WARNING: suspicious RCU usage"
> >
> > thing. Let me see if I can figure out where it goes side-ways.
>
> Hmmm... for WARN_ONCE() don't we need to wake RCU first also? I thought we
> needed that at least for the printk machinery?
Yeah, I'm currently running with a hacked up printk that redirects
everything into early_printk() but it still trips up lots.
I was just about to go stick on RCU magic into WARN itself, this isn't
going to be the only site triggering this fail-cascade.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists