From: 王贇 <yun.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Cc: Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>, Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>,
Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@redhat.com>,
Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@kernel.org>,
linux-csky@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, live-patching@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] ftrace: disable preemption between ftrace_test_recursion_trylock/unlock()
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2021 11:13:08 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5e907ed3-806b-b0e5-518d-d2f3b265377f@linux.alibaba.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YWhJP41cNwDphYsv@alley>
On 2021/10/14 下午11:14, Petr Mladek wrote:
[snip]
>> - return trace_test_and_set_recursion(ip, parent_ip, TRACE_FTRACE_START, TRACE_FTRACE_MAX);
>> + int bit;
>> +
>> + bit = trace_test_and_set_recursion(ip, parent_ip, TRACE_FTRACE_START, TRACE_FTRACE_MAX);
>> + /*
>> + * The zero bit indicate we are nested
>> + * in another trylock(), which means the
>> + * preemption already disabled.
>> + */
>> + if (bit > 0)
>> + preempt_disable_notrace();
>
> Is this safe? The preemption is disabled only when
> trace_test_and_set_recursion() was called by ftrace_test_recursion_trylock().
>
> We must either always disable the preemtion when bit >= 0.
> Or we have to disable the preemtion already in
> trace_test_and_set_recursion().
Internal calling of trace_test_and_set_recursion() will disable preemption
on succeed, it should be safe.
We can also consider move the logical into trace_test_and_set_recursion()
and trace_clear_recursion(), but I'm not very sure about that... ftrace
internally already make sure preemption disabled, what uncovered is those
users who call API trylock/unlock, isn't it?
>
>
> Finally, the comment confused me a lot. The difference between nesting and
> recursion is far from clear. And the code is tricky liky like hell :-)
> I propose to add some comments, see below for a proposal.
The comments do confusing, I'll make it something like:
The zero bit indicate trace recursion happened, whatever
the recursively call was made by ftrace handler or ftrace
itself, the preemption already disabled.
Will this one looks better to you?
>
>> +
>> + return bit;
>> }
>> /**
>> @@ -222,9 +233,13 @@ static __always_inline int ftrace_test_recursion_trylock(unsigned long ip,
>> * @bit: The return of a successful ftrace_test_recursion_trylock()
>> *
>> * This is used at the end of a ftrace callback.
>> + *
>> + * Preemption will be enabled (if it was previously enabled).
>> */
>> static __always_inline void ftrace_test_recursion_unlock(int bit)
>> {
>> + if (bit)
>
> This is not symetric with trylock(). It should be:
>
> if (bit > 0)
>
> Anyway, trace_clear_recursion() quiently ignores bit != 0
Yes, bit == 0 should not happen in here.
>
>
>> + preempt_enable_notrace();
>> trace_clear_recursion(bit);
>> }
>
>
> Below is my proposed patch that tries to better explain the recursion
> check:
>
> From 20d69f11e2683262fa0043b803999061cbac543f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 16:57:39 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] trace: Better describe the recursion check return values
>
> The trace recursion check might be called recursively by different
> layers of the tracing code. It is safe recursion and the check
> is even optimized for this case.
>
> The problematic recursion is when the traced function is called
> by the tracing code. This is properly detected.
>
> Try to explain this difference a better way.
>
> Signed-off-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
> ---
> include/linux/trace_recursion.h | 16 +++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/trace_recursion.h b/include/linux/trace_recursion.h
> index a9f9c5714e65..b5efb804efdf 100644
> --- a/include/linux/trace_recursion.h
> +++ b/include/linux/trace_recursion.h
> @@ -159,13 +159,27 @@ extern void ftrace_record_recursion(unsigned long ip, unsigned long parent_ip);
> # define do_ftrace_record_recursion(ip, pip) do { } while (0)
> #endif
>
> +/*
> + * trace_test_and_set_recursion() is called on several layers
> + * of the ftrace code when handling the same ftrace entry.
> + * These calls might be nested/recursive.
> + *
> + * It uses TRACE_LIST_*BITs to distinguish between this
> + * internal recursion and recursion caused by calling
> + * the traced function by the ftrace code.
> + *
> + * Returns: > 0 when no recursion
> + * 0 when called recursively internally (safe)
The 0 can also happened when ftrace handler recursively called trylock()
under the same context, or not?
Regards,
Michael Wang
> + * -1 when the traced function was called recursively from
> + * the ftrace handler (unsafe)
> + */
> static __always_inline int trace_test_and_set_recursion(unsigned long ip, unsigned long pip,
> int start, int max)
> {
> unsigned int val = READ_ONCE(current->trace_recursion);
> int bit;
>
> - /* A previous recursion check was made */
> + /* Called recursively internally by different ftrace code layers? */
> if ((val & TRACE_CONTEXT_MASK) > max)
> return 0;
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-15 3:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-10-13 8:51 [PATCH v3 0/2] fix & prevent the missing preemption disabling 王贇
2021-10-13 8:51 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] ftrace: disable preemption between ftrace_test_recursion_trylock/unlock() 王贇
2021-10-14 9:13 ` Miroslav Benes
2021-10-14 9:22 ` 王贇
2021-10-14 13:28 ` Steven Rostedt
2021-10-14 15:14 ` Petr Mladek
2021-10-15 3:13 ` 王贇 [this message]
2021-10-15 4:45 ` 王贇
2021-10-15 7:28 ` Petr Mladek
2021-10-15 9:12 ` 王贇
2021-10-15 13:35 ` Steven Rostedt
2021-10-15 3:39 ` Steven Rostedt
2021-10-13 8:52 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] ftrace: do CPU checking after preemption disabled 王贇
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5e907ed3-806b-b0e5-518d-d2f3b265377f@linux.alibaba.com \
--to=yun.wang@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
--cc=aou@eecs.berkeley.edu \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=colin.king@canonical.com \
--cc=deller@gmx.de \
--cc=guoren@kernel.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jikos@kernel.org \
--cc=joe.lawrence@redhat.com \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=jszhang@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-csky@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=live-patching@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mbenes@suse.cz \
--cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
--cc=paul.walmsley@sifive.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pmladek@suse.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).