Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-85670-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 15:22:36 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Masami
 Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
 Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>, Ankur Arora
 <ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
 kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC ftrace] Chose RCU Tasks based on TASKS_RCU rather
 than PREEMPTION
Message-ID: <20240228152236.7a4c9eec@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <f6507b10-5bb5-4407-bd4d-c547193a5a28@paulmck-laptop>
References: <f6507b10-5bb5-4407-bd4d-c547193a5a28@paulmck-laptop>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 11:38:29 -0800
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:

> The advent of CONFIG_PREEMPT_AUTO, AKA lazy preemption, will mean that
> even kernels built with CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE or CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY
> might see the occasional preemption, and that this preemption just might
> happen within a trampoline.
> 
> Therefore, update ftrace_shutdown() to invoke synchronize_rcu_tasks()
> based on CONFIG_TASKS_RCU instead of CONFIG_PREEMPTION.
> 
> Only build tested.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
> Cc: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Cc: <linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> index 2da4eaa2777d6..c9e6c69cf3446 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> @@ -3156,7 +3156,7 @@ int ftrace_shutdown(struct ftrace_ops *ops, int command)
>  		 * synchronize_rcu_tasks() will wait for those tasks to
>  		 * execute and either schedule voluntarily or enter user space.
>  		 */
> -		if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPTION))
> +		if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_TASKS_RCU))
>  			synchronize_rcu_tasks();

What happens if CONFIG_TASKS_RCU is not enabled? Does
synchronize_rcu_tasks() do anything? Or is it just a synchronize_rcu()?

If that's the case, perhaps just remove the if statement and make it:

	synchronize_rcu_tasks();

Not sure an extra synchronize_rcu() will hurt (especially after doing a
synchronize_rcu_tasks_rude() just before hand!

-- Steve