On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 10:46:18AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 07:27:44 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 09:00:03AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 14:49:54 +0200
> > > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 11:21:46AM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > > > - it_func_ptr = rcu_dereference_sched((tp)->funcs); \
> > > >
> > > > I would convert to rcu_dereference_raw() to appease sparse. The fancy
> > > > stuff below is pointless if you then turn off all checking.
> > >
> > > The problem with doing this is if we use a trace event without the
> > > proper _idle() or whatever, we wont get a warning that it is used
> > > incorrectly with lockdep. Or does lockdep still check if "rcu is
> > > watching" with rcu_dereference_raw()?
> >
> > No lockdep checking is done by rcu_dereference_raw().
>
> Correct, but I think we can do this regardless. So Joel please resend
> with Peter's suggestion.
>
> The reason being is because of this:
>
>
> #define __DECLARE_TRACE(name, proto, args, cond, data_proto, data_args) \
> extern struct tracepoint __tracepoint_##name; \
> static inline void trace_##name(proto) \
> { \
> if (static_key_false(&__tracepoint_##name.key)) \
> __DO_TRACE(&__tracepoint_##name, \
> TP_PROTO(data_proto), \
> TP_ARGS(data_args), \
> TP_CONDITION(cond), 0); \
> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LOCKDEP) && (cond)) { \
> rcu_read_lock_sched_notrace(); \
> rcu_dereference_sched(__tracepoint_##name.funcs);\
> rcu_read_unlock_sched_notrace(); \
> } \
> }
>
> Because lockdep would only trigger warnings when the tracepoint was
> enabled and used in a place it shouldn't be, we added the above
> IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LOCKDEP) part to test regardless if the the
> tracepoint was enabled or not. Because we do this, we don't need to
> have the test in the __DO_TRACE() code itself. That means we can clean
> up the code as per Peter's suggestion.
Indeed, the rcu_dereference_sched() would catch it in that case, so
agreed, Peter's suggestion isn't losing any debuggability.
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kselftest" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
