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
References: <1553865808-30604-1-git-send-email-yuzenghui@huawei.com>
 <237b00d0-8a8d-ede6-91b1-c3e23e61925c@arm.com> <20190329105332.6b7fc1ae@gandalf.local.home>
 <e08f603a-29d4-07a7-35b9-68fcdf50b338@huawei.com> <20190329114558.586a4f84@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20190329114558.586a4f84@gandalf.local.home>
From:   Zenghui Yu <zenghuiyu96@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 30 Mar 2019 00:19:05 +0800
Message-ID: <CAKcZhuUZka1qNyzBqSLbR_Z+_q=DkoidSrGGmYnzamrWai8OjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] irqchip/gic-v3: Make gic_handle_irq() notrace
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, julien.thierry@arm.com,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
        suzuki.poulose@arm.com, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        linux@armlinux.org.uk, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, james.morse@arm.com,
        wanghaibin.wang@huawei.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 11:46 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 23:35:59 +0800
> Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Steven,
> >
> > On 2019/3/29 22:53, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 13:58:40 +0000
> > > Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On the other hand, if you can generate pseudo-NMIs, you could end-up
> > >> tracing gic_handle_irq whilst being inside the tracing code with
> > >> interrupts being notionally disabled (and that could be pretty bad).
> > >
> > > Actually, that should still be safe. The tracing code is expected to
> > > trace NMIs.
> > >
> > > Now the entry of an NMI can be an issue because of the way tracing is
> > > enabled. But this would also cause function tracing to crash, which was
> > > not stated. Does function tracing have the same issue, or is this just
> > > with function_graph tracing?
> >
> > This is just with function_graph tracing. Function tracing works fine.
>
> Then we can rule out the break point issue.
>
> >
> > >
> > > This is because a breakpoint is added to all the places that are going
> > > to be traced so that the "nops" at the beginning of function calls are
> > > going to be converted to calls to the tracer. Now that means a
> > > breakpoint is being added at the beginning of gic_handle_irq(). I don't
> > > know how this pseudo NMI works, but we have notrace set for do_NMI
> > > because breakpoints at the entry (before it can fix things) causes
> > > issues. But this still doesn't make sense because the gic_handle_irq()
> > > call doesn't fix things up either, so other functions that are traced
> > > by gic_handle_irq() should blow up too, which appears (by the patch)
> > > not to be the case.
> >
> > Thanks for your explanation. I will read the code around further, and
> > get back to you if there's any discovery.
>
> Well, if it only affects function_graph tracing, then we don't need to
> investigate the break point issue. If it was the break point issue, it
> would cause function tracing to break too.

OK.

>
> Also, which architecture is this for? ARM or ARM64?

on ARM64.


thanks,

zenghui