lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] fgraph: Convert ret_stack tasklist scanning to rcu
On 09/06, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>
> Here tasklist_lock does not protect anything other than the list
> against concurrent fork/exit. And considering that the whole thing
> is capped by FTRACE_RETSTACK_ALLOC_SIZE (32), it should not be a
> problem to have a pontentially stale, yet stable, list. The task cannot
> go away either, so we don't risk racing with ftrace_graph_exit_task()
> which clears the retstack.

I don't understand this code but I think you right, tasklist_lock buys
nothing.

Afaics, with or without this change alloc_retstack_tasklist() can race
with copy_process() and miss the new child; ftrace_graph_init_task()
can't help, ftrace_graph_active can be set right after the check and
for_each_process_thread() can't see the new process yet.

This can't race with ftrace_graph_exit_task(), it is called after the
full gp pass. But this function looks very confusing to me, I don't
understand the barrier and the "NULL must become visible to IRQs before
we free it" comment.

Looks like, ftrace_graph_exit_task() was called by the exiting task
in the past? Indeed, see 65afa5e603d50 ("tracing/function-return-tracer:
free the return stack on free_task()"). I think it makes sense to
simplify this function now, it can simply do kfree(t->ret_stack) and
nothing more.

ACK, but ...

> @@ -387,8 +387,8 @@ static int alloc_retstack_tasklist(struct ftrace_ret_stack **ret_stack_list)
> }
> }
>
> - read_lock(&tasklist_lock);

then you should probably rename alloc_retstack_tasklist() ?

Oleg.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-07 13:57    [W:0.049 / U:0.660 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site