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;
Message-ID: <26c5c095-2aff-3c7b-80ad-7b21702a3fdd@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 21 Jul 2022 18:38:42 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.11.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 04/16] rv/include: Add deterministic automata monitor
 definition via C macros
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@linux-watchdog.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Gabriele Paoloni <gpaoloni@redhat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>,
        Tao Zhou <tao.zhou@linux.dev>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-trace-devel@vger.kernel.org
References: <cover.1658244826.git.bristot@kernel.org>
 <9ffc05b67fff087413143a420373731e0e34eef4.1658244826.git.bristot@kernel.org>
 <20220720160606.3e672b55@gandalf.local.home>
 <3c0a4cb5-f88f-ec5f-e614-d1e8ceb036c2@kernel.org>
 <20220721095924.151c6f5d@gandalf.local.home>
From:   Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20220721095924.151c6f5d@gandalf.local.home>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 7/21/22 15:59, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2022 14:08:38 +0200
> Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 7/20/22 22:06, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>>> +/*												\
>>>> + * da_monitor_enabled_##name - checks if the monitor is enabled					\
>>>> + */												\
>>>> +static inline bool da_monitor_enabled_##name(void)						\
>>>> +{												\  
>>> Should we add a:
>>>
>>> 	smp_rmb();
>>>
>>> here? And then a smp_wmb() where these switches get updated?
>>>  
>>
>> Makes sense.
>>
>> Should I also add the READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE? like
>>
>> smp_rmb()
>> READ_ONCE(var)
>>
>> WRITE_ONCE(var, value)
>> smp_wmb()
> 
> I'm not sure the WRITE_ONCE() is necessary with the memory barriers.
> Because they should also prevent gcc from doing anything after that
> barrier. As Linus once stated, most cases WRITE_ONCE() is useless, but it's
> fine to keep more for annotation (as to pair with the READ_ONCE()) than for
> anything that is critical.

Ack, I can keep for annotation.

>>
>> for all these on/off knobs, or just the barriers?
>>
>>> I guess how critical is it that these turn off immediately after the switch
>>> is flipped?  
>>
>> It is not critical to continue the execution of those that have already crossed by
>> the variable. Still, waiting for the tracepoints to finish their execution before
>> returning to the user-space task that disabled the variable might be a good thing.
> 
> You mean after disabling, to wait for the tracepoints that are currently
> running to end?

yes, after disabling tracepoints.

>>
>> IIRC, we can do that via RCU... like, synchronize_rcu()?
> 
> We have tracepoint_synchronize_unregister() that does that, as some
> traceponits use SRCU and not RCU.

yep, that is it!
 
-- Daniel

> -- Steve
> 
> 
>>
>>>> +	/* global switch */									\
>>>> +	if (unlikely(!rv_monitoring_on()))							\
>>>> +		return 0;									\
>>>> +												\
>>>> +	/* monitor enabled */									\
>>>> +	if (unlikely(!rv_##name.enabled))							\
>>>> +		return 0;									\
>>>> +												\
>>>> +	return 1;										\
>>>> +}												\
>>>> +												\  
>