Re: [PATCH 24/36] printk: Remove trace_.*_rcuidle() usage
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 24/36] printk: Remove trace_.*_rcuidle() usage
- From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2022 12:02:04 +0200
- Cc: ink@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, mattst88@xxxxxxxxx, vgupta@xxxxxxxxxx, linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ulli.kroll@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx, shawnguo@xxxxxxxxxx, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, festevam@xxxxxxxxx, linux-imx@xxxxxxx, tony@xxxxxxxxxxx, khilman@xxxxxxxxxx, catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx, will@xxxxxxxxxx, guoren@xxxxxxxxxx, bcain@xxxxxxxxxxx, chenhuacai@xxxxxxxxxx, kernel@xxxxxxxxxx, geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, sammy@xxxxxxxxx, monstr@xxxxxxxxx, tsbogend@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, dinguyen@xxxxxxxxxx, jonas@xxxxxxxxxxxx, stefan.kristiansson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, shorne@xxxxxxxxx, James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, deller@xxxxxx, mpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, paulus@xxxxxxxxx, paul.walmsley@xxxxxxxxxx, palmer@xxxxxxxxxxx, aou@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, hca@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, gor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, agordeev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, svens@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, ysato@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, dalias@xxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, richard@xxxxxx, anton.ivanov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, mingo@xxxxxxxxxx, bp@xxxxxxxxx, dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, x86@xxxxxxxxxx, hpa@xxxxxxxxx, acme@xxxxxxxxxx, mark.rutland@xxxxxxx, alexander.shishkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx, namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx, jgross@xxxxxxxx, srivatsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, amakhalov@xxxxxxxxxx, pv-drivers@xxxxxxxxxx, boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx, chris@xxxxxxxxxx, jcmvbkbc@xxxxxxxxx, rafael@xxxxxxxxxx, lenb@xxxxxxxxxx, pavel@xxxxxx, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, mturquette@xxxxxxxxxxxx, sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx, daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx, lpieralisi@xxxxxxxxxx, sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx, agross@xxxxxxxxxx, bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx, anup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx, jonathanh@xxxxxxxxxx, jacob.jun.pan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>, yury.norov@xxxxxxxxx, andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx, senozhatsky@xxxxxxxxxxxx, john.ogness@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx, frederic@xxxxxxxxxx, quic_neeraju@xxxxxxxxxxx, josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx, jiangshanlai@xxxxxxxxx, joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, juri.lelli@xxxxxxxxxx, vincent.guittot@xxxxxxxxxx, dietmar.eggemann@xxxxxxx, bsegall@xxxxxxxxxx, mgorman@xxxxxxx, bristot@xxxxxxxxxx, vschneid@xxxxxxxxxx, jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-alpha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-snps-arc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-csky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-hexagon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ia64@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-m68k@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-mips@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, openrisc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-parisc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-s390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-sh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, sparclinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-um@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-perf-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-xtensa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-clk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-arm-msm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-tegra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, rcu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <YqG6URbihTNCk9YR@alley>
- References: <20220608142723.103523089@infradead.org> <20220608144517.444659212@infradead.org> <YqG6URbihTNCk9YR@alley>
On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 11:16:46AM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Wed 2022-06-08 16:27:47, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > The problem, per commit fc98c3c8c9dc ("printk: use rcuidle console
> > tracepoint"), was printk usage from the cpuidle path where RCU was
> > already disabled.
> >
> > Per the patches earlier in this series, this is no longer the case.
>
> My understanding is that this series reduces a lot the amount
> of code called with RCU disabled. As a result the particular printk()
> call mentioned by commit fc98c3c8c9dc ("printk: use rcuidle console
> tracepoint") is called with RCU enabled now. Hence this particular
> problem is fixed better way now.
>
> But is this true in general?
> Does this "prevent" calling printk() a safe way in code with
> RCU disabled?
On x86_64, yes. Other architectures, less so.
Specifically, the objtool noinstr validation pass will warn at build
time (DEBUG_ENTRY=y) if any noinstr/cpuidle code does a call to
non-vetted code like printk().
At the same time; there's a few hacks that allow WARN to work, but
mostly if you hit WARN in entry/noinstr you get to keep the pieces in
any case.
On other architecture we'll need to rely on runtime coverage with
PROVE_RCU. That is, if a splat like in the above mentioned commit
happens again, we'll need to fix it by adjusting the callchain, not by
mucking about with RCU state.
> I am not sure if anyone cares. printk() is the best effort
> functionality because of the consoles code anyway. Also I wonder
> if anyone uses this trace_console().
This is the tracepoint used to spool all of printk into ftrace, I
suspect there's users, but I haven't used it myself.
> Therefore if this patch allows to remove some tricky tracing
> code then it might be worth it. But if trace_console_rcuidle()
> variant is still going to be available then I would keep using it.
My ultimate goal is to delete trace_.*_rcuidle() and RCU_NONIDLE()
entirely. We're close, but not quite there yet.
[Index of Archives]
[Linux Kernel]
[Sparc Linux]
[DCCP]
[Linux ARM]
[Yosemite News]
[Linux SCSI]
[Linux x86_64]
[Linux for Ham Radio]