[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <68b5b122-036b-475a-85bb-e39830f99fbe@paulmck-laptop>
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2026 11:51:10 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@...dia.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraj.upadhyay@...nel.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
Zqiang <qiang.zhang@...ux.dev>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
Yao Kai <yaokai34@...wei.com>, Tengda Wu <wutengda2@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 1/8] rcu: Fix rcu_read_unlock() deadloop due to
softirq
On Fri, Jan 02, 2026 at 12:30:09PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 12:28:07 -0500
> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> > Stacktrace should have recursion protection too.
> >
> > Can you try this patch to see if it would have fixed the problem too?
>
> As I believe the recursion protection should be in the tracing
> infrastructure more than in RCU. As RCU is used as an active participant in
> the kernel whereas tracing is supposed to be only an observer.
>
> If tracing is the culprit, it should be the one that is fixed.
Makes sense to me! But then it would... ;-)
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists