Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761433AbYBSWDf (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:03:35 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754452AbYBSWD0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:03:26 -0500 Received: from tomts13.bellnexxia.net ([209.226.175.34]:32852 "EHLO tomts13-srv.bellnexxia.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753860AbYBSWDY (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:03:24 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ah4FAFzhukdMQWRV/2dsb2JhbACBWa1e Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:03:18 -0500 From: Mathieu Desnoyers To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: Jan Kiszka , prasad@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, Gautham R Shenoy , linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, dipankar@in.ibm.com Subject: Re: Markers: multi-probe locking fun (was: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Markers Implementation for RCU Tracing - Ver II) Message-ID: <20080219220317.GA20682@Krystal> References: <20071231060911.GB6461@in.ibm.com> <20080103163055.GB27651@Krystal> <20080104105858.GA13865@in.ibm.com> <20080105124632.GA16576@Krystal> <20080107195038.GA5119@in.ibm.com> <47B97E63.3070205@siemens.com> <20080218194825.GF10471@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <47BB037C.6060306@siemens.com> <20080219215428.GI10774@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080219215428.GI10774@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Editor: vi X-Info: http://krystal.dyndns.org:8080 X-Operating-System: Linux/2.6.21.3-grsec (i686) X-Uptime: 17:02:45 up 8 days, 18:03, 4 users, load average: 1.14, 0.67, 0.60 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3274 Lines: 84 * Paul E. McKenney (paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote: > On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 05:27:40PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote: > > Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 01:47:31PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote: > > >> K. Prasad wrote: > > >>> Hi Ingo, > > >>> Please accept these patches into the rt tree which convert the > > >>> existing RCU tracing mechanism for Preempt RCU and RCU Boost into > > >>> markers. > > >>> > > >>> These patches are based upon the 2.6.24-rc5-rt1 kernel tree. > > >>> > > >>> Along with marker transition, the RCU Tracing infrastructure has also > > >>> been modularised to be built as a kernel module, thereby enabling > > >>> runtime changes to the RCU Tracing infrastructure. > > >>> > > >>> Patch [1/2] - Patch that converts the Preempt RCU tracing in > > >>> rcupreempt.c into markers. > > >>> > > >>> Patch [1/2] - Patch that converts the Preempt RCU Boost tracing in > > >>> rcupreempt-boost.c into markers. > > >>> > > >> I have a technical problem with marker-based RCU tracing: It causes > > >> nasty recursions with latest multi-probe marker patches (sorry, no link > > >> at hand, can be found in latest LTTng, maybe also already in -mm). Those > > >> patches introduce a marker probe trampoline like this: > > >> > > >> void marker_probe_cb(const struct marker *mdata, void *call_private, > > >> const char *fmt, ...) > > >> { > > >> va_list args; > > >> char ptype; > > >> > > >> /* > > >> * rcu_read_lock does two things : disabling preemption to make sure the > > >> * teardown of the callbacks can be done correctly when they are in > > >> * modules and they insure RCU read coherency. > > >> */ > > >> rcu_read_lock(); > > >> preempt_disable(); > > >> ... > > >> > > >> Can we do multi-probe with pure preempt_disable/enable protection? I > > >> guess it's fine with classic RCU, but what about preemptible RCU? Any > > >> suggestion appreciated! > > > > > > If you substitute synchronize_sched() for synchronize_rcu(), this should > > > work fine. Of course, this approach would cause RCU tracing to degrade > > > latencies somewhat in -rt. > > > > > > If tracing is using call_rcu(), we will need to add a call_sched() > > > or some such. > > > > You mean something like "#define call_sched call_rcu_classic"? > > This would work for Classic RCU. For preemptible RCU, a bit more > work is needed. > > > I just learned that there is another reason for killing > > rcu_read_lock&friends from the marker probes: It can deadlock on -rt > > with PREEMPT_RCU_BOOST (hit probe inside rq-lock protected region => > > rcu_read_unlock triggers unboost => stuck on rq_lock :( ). > > OK, good to know. Guess we need a call_sched() for -rt and for > preemptible RCU sooner rather than later... > Yup, I would need call_sched() and sched_barrier(). Thanks, Mathieu > Thanx, Paul -- Mathieu Desnoyers Computer Engineering Ph.D. Student, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/