Message-Id: <20230525081318.b4984f7d5f3e89f70368fe71@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2023 08:13:18 +0800
From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To: paulmck@...nel.org
Cc: Ze Gao <zegao2021@...il.com>, Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>, Yonghong
 Song <yhs@...a.com>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Andrii Nakryiko
 <andrii@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Hao Luo
 <haoluo@...gle.com>, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, KP Singh
 <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, Song Liu
 <song@...nel.org>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>, Steven Rostedt
 <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 kafai@...com, kpsingh@...omium.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 songliubraving@...com, Ze Gao <zegao@...cent.com>
Subject: Re:

On Mon, 22 May 2023 23:59:28 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:

> On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 01:30:19PM +0800, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 May 2023 10:07:42 +0800
> > Ze Gao <zegao2021@...il.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Oops, I missed that. Thanks for pointing that out, which I thought is
> > > conditional use of rcu_is_watching before.
> > > 
> > > One last point, I think we should double check on this
> > >      "fentry does not filter with !rcu_is_watching"
> > > as quoted from Yonghong and argue whether it needs
> > > the same check for fentry as well.
> > 
> > rcu_is_watching() comment says;
> > 
> >  * if the current CPU is not in its idle loop or is in an interrupt or
> >  * NMI handler, return true.
> > 
> > Thus it returns *fault* if the current CPU is in the idle loop and not
> > any interrupt(including NMI) context. This means if any tracable function
> > is called from idle loop, it can be !rcu_is_watching(). I meant, this is
> > 'context' based check, thus fentry can not filter out that some commonly
> > used functions is called from that context but it can be detected.
> 
> It really does return false (rather than faulting?) if the current CPU
> is deep within the idle loop.
> 
> In addition, the recent x86/entry rework (thank you Peter and
> Thomas!) mean that the "idle loop" is quite restricted, as can be
> seen by the invocations of ct_cpuidle_enter() and ct_cpuidle_exit().
> For example, in default_idle_call(), these are immediately before and
> after the call to arch_cpu_idle().

Thanks! I also found that the default_idle_call() is enough small and
it seems not happening on fentry because there are no commonly used
functions on that path.

> 
> Would the following help?  Or am I missing your point?

Yes, thank you for the update!

> 
> 							Thanx, Paul
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index 1449cb69a0e0..fae9b4e29c93 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -679,10 +679,14 @@ static void rcu_disable_urgency_upon_qs(struct rcu_data *rdp)
>  /**
>   * rcu_is_watching - see if RCU thinks that the current CPU is not idle
>   *
> - * Return true if RCU is watching the running CPU, which means that this
> - * CPU can safely enter RCU read-side critical sections.  In other words,
> - * if the current CPU is not in its idle loop or is in an interrupt or
> - * NMI handler, return true.
> + * Return @true if RCU is watching the running CPU and @false otherwise.
> + * An @true return means that this CPU can safely enter RCU read-side
> + * critical sections.
> + *
> + * More specifically, if the current CPU is not deep within its idle
> + * loop, return @true.  Note that rcu_is_watching() will return @true if
> + * invoked from an interrupt or NMI handler, even if that interrupt or
> + * NMI interrupted the CPU while it was deep within its idle loop.
>   *
>   * Make notrace because it can be called by the internal functions of
>   * ftrace, and making this notrace removes unnecessary recursion calls.


-- 
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists