[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <eacb18fc-7066-40f3-9d83-4602e946c225@efficios.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2024 20:35:03 -0400
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>, "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Michael Jeanson <mjeanson@...icios.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 5/8] tracing: Allow system call tracepoints to handle
page faults
On 2024-10-04 00:29, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 11:16:35 -0400
[...[
>> -#define __DO_TRACE(name, args, cond, rcuidle) \
>> +#define __DO_TRACE(name, args, cond, rcuidle, syscall) \
>> do { \
>> int __maybe_unused __idx = 0; \
>> \
>> @@ -222,8 +224,12 @@ static inline struct tracepoint *tracepoint_ptr_deref(tracepoint_ptr_t *p)
>> "Bad RCU usage for tracepoint")) \
>> return; \
>> \
>> - /* keep srcu and sched-rcu usage consistent */ \
>> - preempt_disable_notrace(); \
>> + if (syscall) { \
>> + rcu_read_lock_trace(); \
>> + } else { \
>> + /* keep srcu and sched-rcu usage consistent */ \
>> + preempt_disable_notrace(); \
>> + } \
>> \
>
> I'm thinking we just use rcu_read_lock_trace() and get rid of the
> preempt_disable and srcu locks for all tracepoints. Oh crap! I should get
> rid of srcu locking too, as it was only needed for the rcuidle code :-p
How about we do it one step at a time ? First introduce use of the
(lightly tested) rcu_read_lock_trace() (at least in comparison with
preempt disable RCU) only for syscalls, and if this works well,
then eventually consider moving the preempt off users to
rcu_read_lock_trace as well ?
Of course it should all work well, in theory. But considering the
vast number of tracepoints we have in the kernel, I am reluctant
to change too many things at once in that area. We may very well
be bitten by unforeseen corner-cases.
Thanks,
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
https://www.efficios.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists