Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 10:56:37 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Shreyas B Prabhu <shreyas@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing: Add comments explaining cpu online filter for
 trace events
Message-ID: <20150514105637.02eebc97@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <5554AE2B.30201@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <1431533263-5139-1-git-send-email-shreyas@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<20150513122147.4ead9f07@gandalf.local.home>
	<5554AE2B.30201@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2102
Lines: 46

On Thu, 14 May 2015 19:46:11 +0530
Shreyas B Prabhu <shreyas@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
 
> > Thanks for the comments, but can't these still be called with
> > preemption enabled. What happens when CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT is set and
> > you enable these tracepoints. Wont it trigger a warning about
> > smp_processor_id() being used in preemptible code?
> > 
> Yes. It does trigger "using smp_processor_id() in preemptible code"
> warnings. But as you mentioned in the previous comments, we should be
> safe even if the trace call happens from a preemptible section. Let me
> play out the scenarios here again-
> 
> The task gets migrated after the smp_processor_id()
> 1. From an online cpu to another online cpu - No impact
> 2. From an online cpu to an offline cpu - Should never happen
> 3. From an offline cpu to an online cpu - IIUC, once a cpu has been
> offlined it returns to cpu_idle_loop, discovers its offline and calls
> arch_cpu_idle_dead. All this happens with preemption disabled. So this
> scenario too should never happen.
> 
> So I don't see any downside to changing smp_processor_id() to
> raw_smp_processor_id() which will suppress the warnings. If you agree
> I'll send a patch doing this.

Yes, please use the raw_smp_processor_id(), and you can add the above
description about why it is safe to do so (in the comments).

> 
> Another alternative which is perhaps worth considering is to change
> __DO_TRACE itself to check for offline cpu, without a trace event
> specifying the check. This will prevent any currently uncaught and any
> future tracepoints from using RCU on offline cpus. But I guess it's
> little extreme considering only a low fraction of tracepoints have
> potential of being called from offline cpus.

I think that's a bit extreme, as it would cause an impact to the speed
of tracepoints in the hot path.

-- Steve

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/