[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87fs8x4c8k.ffs@tglx>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 14:16:11 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] preempt: Put preempt_enable() within an
instrumentation*() section.
On Thu, Mar 09 2023 at 08:27, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> Callers of preempt_enable() can be within an noinstr section leading to:
> | vmlinux.o: warning: objtool: native_sched_clock+0x97: call to preempt_schedule_notrace_thunk() leaves .noinstr.text section
> | vmlinux.o: warning: objtool: kvm_clock_read+0x22: call to preempt_schedule_notrace_thunk() leaves .noinstr.text section
> | vmlinux.o: warning: objtool: local_clock+0xb4: call to preempt_schedule_notrace_thunk() leaves .noinstr.text section
> | vmlinux.o: warning: objtool: enter_from_user_mode+0xea: call to preempt_schedule_thunk() leaves .noinstr.text section
> | vmlinux.o: warning: objtool: syscall_enter_from_user_mode+0x140: call to preempt_schedule_thunk() leaves .noinstr.text section
> | vmlinux.o: warning: objtool: syscall_enter_from_user_mode_prepare+0xf2: call to preempt_schedule_thunk() leaves .noinstr.text section
> | vmlinux.o: warning: objtool: irqentry_enter_from_user_mode+0xea: call to preempt_schedule_thunk() leaves .noinstr.text section
I'm confused where this preempt_enable is in those
*_enter_from_user_mode() functions.
Kernel config and compiler version please.
> #define preempt_enable() \
> do { \
> barrier(); \
> - if (unlikely(preempt_count_dec_and_test())) \
> + if (unlikely(preempt_count_dec_and_test())) { \
> + instrumentation_begin(); \
> __preempt_schedule(); \
> + instrumentation_end(); \
> + } \
> } while (0)
This would paper over a misplaced preempt_disable/enable() pair in
noinstr code. I'm not really happy about that.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists