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, 5 Feb 2020 08:14:09 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc:     Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Amol Grover <frextrite@gmail.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
        Madhuparna Bhowmik <madhuparnabhowmik10@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing: Annotate ftrace_graph_hash pointer with __rcu
Message-ID: <20200205081409.4550aa67@oasis.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20200205131110.GT2935@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
References: <20200201072703.17330-1-frextrite@gmail.com>
        <20200203163301.GB85781@google.com>
        <20200204200116.479f0c60@oasis.local.home>
        <20200205131110.GT2935@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
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, 5 Feb 2020 05:11:10 -0800
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:

> I strongly recommend a comment stating why disabling preemption prevents
> ftrace_graph_hash from going away.  I see the synchronize_rcu() after
> the rcu_assign_pointer() in ftrace_graph_release(), but I don't see
> anything that waits on CPUs that RCU is not watching.
> 
> Of course, event tracing -makes- RCU watch when needed, but if that
> was set up, then lockdep would not have complained.
> 
> So what am I missing?

Keep looking in your INBOX and look at the patch I asked you to ack or
complain about ;-) 

-- Steve