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, 8 Aug 2018 07:33:10 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
        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>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Glexiner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 3/3] tracing: Centralize preemptirq tracepoints and
 unify their usage
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <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>
 <CAJWu+oqPUuF4rFOQ8=G3+ZxXJxiiNRBYE8C=zZ93A8qA+muHEg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180808084629.3290d1d6@gandalf.local.home>
 <20180808130302.GJ24813@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180808090724.41677176@gandalf.local.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180808090724.41677176@gandalf.local.home>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Message-Id: <20180808143310.GL24813@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 09:07:24AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 06:03:02 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> >  What's wrong with a this_cpu_inc()? It's atomic for the CPU. Although
> > > it wont be atomic for the capture of the idx. But I also don't see
> > > interrupts being disabled, thus an NMI is no different than any
> > > interrupt doing the same thing, right?  
> > 
> > On architectures without increment-memory instructions, if you take an NMI
> > between the load from sp->sda->srcu_lock_count and the later store, you
> > lose a count.  Note that both __srcu_read_lock() and __srcu_read_unlock()
> > do increments of different locations, so you cannot rely on the usual
> > "NMI fixes up before exit" semantics you get when incrementing and
> > decrementing the same location.
> 
> And how is this handled in the interrupt case? Interrupts are not
> disabled here.

Actually, on most architectures interrupts are in fact disabled:

#define this_cpu_generic_to_op(pcp, val, op)				\
do {									\
	unsigned long __flags;						\
	raw_local_irq_save(__flags);					\
	raw_cpu_generic_to_op(pcp, val, op);				\
	raw_local_irq_restore(__flags);					\
} while (0)

NMIs, not so much.

> I would also argue that architectures without increment-memory
> instructions shouldn't have NMIs ;-)

I would also argue a lot of things, but objective reality does not take my
opinions into account all that often.  Which might be a good thing.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul