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: <CAJWu+oqcM_-rtuUe7hhMHyZ2UKZ5J4rBZO7UoHxxd2DAs=aHdA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20180730222423.196630-1-joel@joelfernandes.org>
 <20180730222423.196630-4-joel@joelfernandes.org> <20180806155058.5ee875f4@gandalf.local.home>
 <CAJWu+oqvpev_EZC38_mi+UNRCxS8GqNVagHyGM4dUjruzKgwgQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180806214300.13e63523@gandalf.local.home> <CAJWu+oqZi2W9OYAn2xu17fdrBitQs4Gti4LxWmtx5B-EYtNMmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180807094954.5137972d@gandalf.local.home> <446AE5F2-39E0-46B6-8E0B-207E003DBF20@google.com>
 <20180807103410.4fe203cb@gandalf.local.home> <C1CB990F-8232-4168-89A8-E8C13B660B0B@google.com>
 <20180807110906.3a1b0ac4@gandalf.local.home> <6B9E5DC9-0859-41B4-9B72-A7D85E9EA2AD@google.com>
 <20180807194515.4e549c1a@gandalf.local.home> <6D0A3FD6-2190-4CC0-A3C0-7B3759E73243@google.com>
 <20180807204820.50b83c6d@vmware.local.home> <CAJWu+oqBOEJicepLaUG=JpmtDTgxjRdMyJAgOEUkdk4NzX0esw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180807215522.04114097@vmware.local.home> <CAJWu+opjqKgZj30PYpyvip=EtP8CuqaEy65++nuvj37QMT6GCw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180807222856.3ede96e7@vmware.local.home> <CAJWu+oqcM_-rtuUe7hhMHyZ2UKZ5J4rBZO7UoHxxd2DAs=aHdA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 7 Aug 2018 20:53:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJWu+oqPUuF4rFOQ8=G3+ZxXJxiiNRBYE8C=zZ93A8qA+muHEg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 3/3] tracing: Centralize preemptirq tracepoints and
 unify their usage
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Cc: Android Kernel" <kernel-team@android.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Glexiner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@linux.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 8:44 PM, Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com> wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 7:28 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
[...]
>>> @@ -171,8 +174,7 @@ extern void syscall_unregfunc(void);
>>>                       } while ((++it_func_ptr)->func);                \
>>>               }                                                       \
>>>                                                                       \
>>> -             if (rcuidle)                                            \
>>> -                     srcu_read_unlock_notrace(&tracepoint_srcu, idx);\
>>> +             srcu_read_unlock_notrace(ss, idx);                      \
>>
>> Hmm, why do we have the two different srcu handles?
>
> Because if the memory operations happening on the normal SRCU handle
> (during srcu_read_lock) is interrupted by NMI, then the other handle
> (devoted to NMI) could be used instead and not bother the interrupted
> handle. Does that makes sense?
>
> When I talked to Paul few months ago about SRCU from NMI context, he
> mentioned the per-cpu memory operations during srcu_read_lock can be
> NMI interrupted, that's why we added that warning.

So I looked more closely, __srcu_read_lock on 2 different handles may
still be doing a this_cpu_inc on the same location..
(sp->sda->srcu_lock_count). :-(

Paul any ideas on how to solve this?

It does start to seem like a show stopper :-(