Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 22 Mar 2022 08:54:55 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        mhiramat@kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, hjl.tools@gmail.com,
        rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com, rppt@kernel.org,
        linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org, Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com,
        ndesaulniers@google.com
Subject: Re: linux-next: build warnings after merge of the tip tree
Message-ID: <YjmAz0MbdW4Q1Cnv@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <Yjh11UjDZogc3foM@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <Yjh3xZuuY3QcZ1Bn@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20220321112805.1393f9b9@gandalf.local.home>
 <YjiiDFHIQg78QwSb@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20220321121209.3b95e406@gandalf.local.home>
 <20220321121549.1c8588c5@gandalf.local.home>
 <YjiqgPL+pPGkOgCv@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20220321124551.3d73660b@gandalf.local.home>
 <Yjis6hJKUj/WrSwK@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20220321125419.0a20415c@gandalf.local.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220321125419.0a20415c@gandalf.local.home>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 12:54:19PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 17:50:50 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> 
> > > This also assumes that we need to trace everything that is marked. I
> > > mentioned in another email, what do we do if we only trace funcA?  
> > 
> > Like I said later on; if we inhibit tail-calls to notrace, this goes
> > away.
> 
> Please no. The number of "notrace" functions is increasing to the point
> that it's starting to make function tracing useless in a lot of
> circumstances. I've already lost my ability to see when user space goes
> into the kernel (which I have to hack up custom coding to enable again).

I really can't follow the argument there, nor on IRC.

Suppose:

notrace func_B()
{
	...
}

func_A()
{
	...
	return func_B();
}

then inhibiting tail calls would end up looking like:

func_A:
	call __fentry__
	...
	call func_B
	call __fexit__
	ret

Then A is fully traced, B is invisible, as per spec. What is the
problem?

The problem you initially had, of doing a tail-call into a notrace, was
that the __fexit__ call went missing, because notrace will obviously not
have that. But that's avoided by inhibiting all tail-calls between
notrace and !notrace functions (note that notrace must also not
tail-call !notrace).

Your worry seems to stem about loosing visiblilty of !notrace functions,
but AFAICT that doesn't happen.