Date:   Tue, 24 Jan 2023 17:12:14 +0000
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, mingo@kernel.org,
        will@kernel.org, boqun.feng@gmail.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
        bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org,
        hpa@zytor.com, seanjc@google.com, pbonzini@redhat.com,
        jgross@suse.com, srivatsa@csail.mit.edu, amakhalov@vmware.com,
        pv-drivers@vmware.com, mhiramat@kernel.org, wanpengli@tencent.com,
        vkuznets@redhat.com, boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com, rafael@kernel.org,
        daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
        bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de, bristot@redhat.com,
        vschneid@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] ftrace/x86: Warn and ignore graph tracing when RCU
 is disabled
Message-ID: <Y9ARbgtYhxSuOIlZ@FVFF77S0Q05N>
References: <20230123205009.790550642@infradead.org>
 <20230123205515.059999893@infradead.org>
 <20230123165304.370121e7@gandalf.local.home>
 <20230123170753.7ac9419e@gandalf.local.home>
 <Y8/u00WHGElMDjoo@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y8/u00WHGElMDjoo@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 03:44:35PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 05:07:53PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 
> > Actually, perhaps we can just add this, and all you need to do is create
> > and set CONFIG_NO_RCU_TRACING (or some other name).
> 
> Elsewhere I've used CONFIG_ARCH_WANTS_NO_INSTR for this.

Yes please; if we use CONFIG_ARCH_WANTS_NO_INSTR then arm64 will get this "for
free" once we add the missing checks (which I assume we need) in our ftrace_prepare_return().

> Anyway, I took it for a spin and it .... doesn't seems to do the job.
> 
> With my patch the first splat is
> 
>   "RCU not on for: cpuidle_poll_time+0x0/0x70"
> 
> While with yours I seems to get the endless:
> 
>   "WARNING: suspicious RCU usage"
> 
> thing. Let me see if I can figure out where it goes side-ways.

Hmmm... for WARN_ONCE() don't we need to wake RCU first also? I thought we
needed that at least for the printk machinery?

Thanks,
Mark.