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;
Date:   Wed, 11 Jul 2018 21:26:26 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Julia Cartwright <julia@ni.com>,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Thomas Glexiner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 4/7] tracepoint: Make rcuidle tracepoint callers use
 SRCU
Message-ID: <20180711212626.5992e2c8@vmware.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20180712003100.GC32091@joelaf.mtv.corp.google.com>
References: <20180628182149.226164-1-joel@joelfernandes.org>
        <20180628182149.226164-5-joel@joelfernandes.org>
        <20180711125647.GG2476@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
        <20180711090649.68af40f9@gandalf.local.home>
        <20180712003100.GC32091@joelaf.mtv.corp.google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 17:31:00 -0700
Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 09:06:49AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 14:56:47 +0200
> > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> >   
> > > On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 11:21:46AM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:  
> > > >  static inline void tracepoint_synchronize_unregister(void)
> > > >  {
> > > > +	synchronize_srcu(&tracepoint_srcu);
> > > >  	synchronize_sched();
> > > >  }    
> > > 
> > > Given you below do call_rcu_sched() and then call_srcu(), isn't the
> > > above the wrong way around?  
> > 
> > Good catch!
> > 
> > 	release_probes()
> > 		call_rcu_sched()  
> > 			---> rcu_free_old_probes() queued  
> > 
> > 	tracepoint_synchronize_unregister()
> > 		synchronize_srcu(&tracepoint_srcu);
> > 			< finishes right away >
> > 		synchronize_sched()  
> > 			--> rcu_free_old_probes()
> > 				--> srcu_free_old_probes() queued  
> > 	
> > Here tracepoint_synchronize_unregister() returned before the srcu
> > portion ran.  
> 
> But isn't the point of synchronize_rcu to make sure that we're no longer in
> an RCU read-side section, not that *all* queued callbacks already ran? So in that
> case, I think it doesn't matter which order the 2 synchronize functions are
> called in. Please let me know if if I missed something!
> 
> I believe what we're trying to guarantee here is that no tracepoints using
> either flavor of RCU are active after tracepoint_synchronize_unregister
> returns.

Yes you are correct. If tracepoint_synchronize_unregister() is only to
make sure that there is no more trace events using the probes, then
this should work. I was focused on looking at it with release_probes()
too. So the patch is fine as is.

-- Steve