Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 14 Apr 2020 19:57:49 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To:     John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
Cc:     Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
        Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: On trace_*_rcuidle functions in modules
Message-ID: <20200415025748.GV17661@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <CALAqxLV4rM74wuzuZ+BkUi+keccxkAxv30N4vrFO7CVQ5vnT1A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALAqxLV4rM74wuzuZ+BkUi+keccxkAxv30N4vrFO7CVQ5vnT1A@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 07:20:01PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> Hey folks,
>   So recently I was looking at converting some drivers to be loadable
> modules instead of built-in only, and one of my patches just landed in
> -next and started getting build error reports.
> 
> It ends up, recently in the merge window, the driver I was converting
> to module switched a trace_*() function to trace_*_rcuidle() to fix a
> bug.  Now when building as a module, if tracing is configured on, it
> can't seem to find the trace_*_rcuidle() symbol.
> 
> This is because, as you are aware, we don't declare trace_*_rcuidle
> functions in modules - and haven't for quite some time:
>   https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20120905062306.GA14756@leaf/
> 
> I wanted to better understand the background rationale for that patch,
> to understand if not exporting the rcu_idle_exit and rcu_idle_enter,
> calls was because they weren't used or if it was a more intentional
> decision to avoid allowing modules to use them.
> 
> Would it be reasonable to revisit that patch? Or is there some
> recommended alternative solution?

I will defer to Steven and Josh on the rationale.  (Cowardly of me,
I know!)

What I do is to maintain a wrapper for tracepoints within a built-in
portion of RCU, export the wrapper, and invoke the wrapper from the
rcutorture module.  Maybe you can do something similar?

But why would a module be invoked from the idle loop?  Is the module
supplying an idle driver or some such?

							Thanx, Paul