lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Aug]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH ftrace/core] tracing: irqsoff: Account for additional preempt_disable
On Sun,  5 Aug 2018 20:40:49 -0700
"Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@joelfernandes.org> wrote:

> Recently we tried to make the preemptirqsoff tracer to use irqsoff
> tracepoint probes. However this causes issues as reported by Masami:
>
> [2.271078] Testing tracer preemptirqsoff: .. no entries found ..FAILED!
> [2.381015] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1 at /home/mhiramat/ksrc/linux/kernel/
> trace/trace.c:1512 run_tracer_selftest+0xf3/0x154
>
> This is due to the tracepoint code increasing the preempt nesting count
> by calling an additional preempt_disable before calling into the
> preemptoff tracer which messes up the preempt_count() check in
> tracer_hardirqs_off.
>
> To fix this, make the irqsoff tracer probes balance the additional outer
> preempt_disable with a preempt_enable_notrace.

I've tested it and ensured this fixes the problem.

Tested-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>

And I have a comment on this code.

>
> The other way to fix this is to just use SRCU for all tracepoints.
> However we can't do that because we can't use NMIs from RCU context.
>
> Fixes: c3bc8fd637a9 ("tracing: Centralize preemptirq tracepoints
> and unify their usage")
> Fixes: e6753f23d961 ("tracepoint: Make rcuidle tracepoint callers use SRCU")
> Reported-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
> ---
> kernel/trace/trace_irqsoff.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_irqsoff.c b/kernel/trace/trace_irqsoff.c
> index 770cd30cda40..ffbf1505d5bc 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/trace_irqsoff.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_irqsoff.c
> @@ -603,14 +603,40 @@ static void irqsoff_tracer_stop(struct trace_array *tr)
> */
> static void tracer_hardirqs_on(void *none, unsigned long a0, unsigned long a1)
> {

To ensure this function must not be preempted even if we increment preempt
count, I think you should check irq_disabled() whole this process, put below
here.

if (unlikely(!irq_disabled()))
return;

Since irq_disabled() will be checked in irq_trace() anyway, so no problem
to return here when !irq_disabled().

> + /*
> + * Tracepoint probes are expected to be called with preempt disabled,
> + * We don't care about being called with preempt disabled but we need
> + * to know in the future if that changes so we can remove the next
> + * preempt_enable.
> + */
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(!preempt_count());
> +
> + /* Tracepoint probes disable preemption atleast once, account for that */

* Even we do this here, we are sure that irq is disabled in this context.
* which means preemption is kept disabled.

> + preempt_enable_notrace();
> +
> if (!preempt_trace() && irq_trace())
> stop_critical_timing(a0, a1);
> +
> + preempt_disable_notrace();
> }
>
> static void tracer_hardirqs_off(void *none, unsigned long a0, unsigned long a1)
> {

Same here.


Any though :) ?

Thank you,

> + /*
> + * Tracepoint probes are expected to be called with preempt disabled,
> + * We don't care about being called with preempt disabled but we need
> + * to know in the future if that changes so we can remove the next
> + * preempt_enable.
> + */
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(!preempt_count());
> +
> + /* Tracepoint probes disable preemption atleast once, account for that */
> + preempt_enable_notrace();
> +
> if (!preempt_trace() && irq_trace())
> start_critical_timing(a0, a1);
> +
> + preempt_disable_notrace();
> }
>
> static int irqsoff_tracer_init(struct trace_array *tr)
> --
> 2.18.0.597.ga71716f1ad-goog
>


--
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-08-06 16:07    [W:0.122 / U:1.420 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site