Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180620155658.GU3593@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <1529484440-20634-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com>
 <20180620145058.GP3593@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180620114335.7a314642@gandalf.local.home>
 <20180620155658.GU3593@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
From:   Byungchul Park <max.byungchul.park@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Jun 2018 01:11:36 +0900
Message-ID: <CANrsvRMW_LF1W3-OerHbXm1nqPBLGhQYP6ZsTMapGnfiT7-W3w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] rcu: Do prepare and cleanup idle depending on in_nmi()
To:     Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>,
        jiangshanlai@gmail.com, josh@joshtriplett.org,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@lge.com,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 12:56 AM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:43:35AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 07:50:58 -0700
>> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 05:47:19PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
>> > > Get rid of dependency on ->dynticks_nmi_nesting.
>> > >
>> > > Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
>> > > ---
>> > >  kernel/rcu/tree.c | 22 ++++++++++------------
>> > >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>> > >
>> > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
>> > > index deb2508..59ae94e 100644
>> > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
>> > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
>> > > @@ -797,6 +797,11 @@ void rcu_nmi_exit(void)
>> > >           return;
>> > >   }
>> > >
>> > > + if (!in_nmi()) {
>> >
>> > Is in_nmi() sufficiently reliable for use here?  In the past, there have
>> > been tracepoints that invoked these functions between the time that the
>> > handlers were entered and the time that software updated the state so that
>> > the various handler-check functions (such as in_nmi()) would return true.
>> >
>> > Steve, has there been any change in this situation?
>>
>> There shouldn't be any "trace events", but what we had to deal with was
>> function tracing. And in the near future, we will be getting "function
>> based events" that will allow you to create an event in any function.
>>
>> That said, even the function tracer shouldn't be called from the time
>> the NMI triggers to "in_nmi()" is set. Because there's some function
>> tracer callbacks that should not be executed from an NMI, and I use
>> in_nmi() to determine if they get called or not.
>
> OK, so in theory this change is safe from a tracing perspective.  But
> it does add conditionals to a fastpath.
>
> Byungchul, is there any reason to make this change other than preparation
> for your second patch?

Sorry again I didn't explain it fully in advance. The only reason is to
prepare for the 2nd. It was harder to read the patch when I made them
into one. But I can make them into one if you don't think so.

>
>                                                         Thanx, Paul
>


-- 
Thanks,
Byungchul