From: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
To: Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Cc: Android Kernel" <kernel-team@android.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Thomas Glexiner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 3/3] tracing: Centralize preemptirq tracepoints and unify their usage
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2018 15:15:31 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJWu+op0H9vry70YXx6x3e37Sxsgb45go7B9MmE-y2O5wdLOYg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180808201852.GZ24813@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
[...]
>> >> >> It does start to seem like a show stopper :-(
>> >> >
>> >> > I suppose that an srcu_read_lock_nmi() and srcu_read_unlock_nmi() could
>> >> > be added, which would do atomic ops on sp->sda->srcu_lock_count. Not sure
>> >> > whether this would be fast enough to be useful, but easy to provide:
>> >> >
>> >> > int __srcu_read_lock_nmi(struct srcu_struct *sp) /* UNTESTED. */
>> >> > {
>> >> > int idx;
>> >> >
>> >> > idx = READ_ONCE(sp->srcu_idx) & 0x1;
>> >> > atomic_inc(&sp->sda->srcu_lock_count[idx]);
>> >> > smp_mb__after_atomic(); /* B */ /* Avoid leaking critical section. */
>> >> > return idx;
>> >> > }
>> >> >
>> >> > void __srcu_read_unlock_nmi(struct srcu_struct *sp, int idx)
>> >> > {
>> >> > smp_mb__before_atomic(); /* C */ /* Avoid leaking critical section. */
>> >> > atomic_inc(&sp->sda->srcu_unlock_count[idx]);
>> >> > }
>> >> >
>> >> > With appropriate adjustments to also allow Tiny RCU to also work.
>> >> >
>> >> > Note that you have to use _nmi() everywhere, not just in NMI handlers.
>> >> > In fact, the NMI handlers are the one place you -don't- need to use
>> >> > _nmi(), strangely enough.
>> >> >
>> >> > Might be worth a try -- smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic() is a no-op on
>> >> > some architectures, for example.
>> >>
>> >> Continuing Steve's question on regular interrupts, do we need to use
>> >> this atomic_inc API for regular interrupts as well? So I guess
>> >
>> > If NMIs use one srcu_struct and non-NMI uses another, the current
>> > srcu_read_lock() and srcu_read_unlock() will work just fine. If any given
>> > srcu_struct needs both NMI and non-NMI readers, then we really do need
>> > __srcu_read_lock_nmi() and __srcu_read_unlock_nmi() for that srcu_struct.
>>
>> Yes, I believe as long as in_nmi() works reliably, we can use the
>> right srcu_struct (NMI vs non-NMI) and it would be fine.
>>
>> Going through this thread, it sounds though that this_cpu_inc may not
>> be reliable on all architectures even for non-NMI interrupts and
>> local_inc may be the way to go.
>
> My understanding is that this_cpu_inc() is defined to handle interrupts,
> so any architecture on which it is unreliable needs to fix its bug. ;-)
Yes that's my understanding as well.
Then may be I'm missing something about yours/Steve's conversations in
the morning, about why we need bother with the local_inc then. So the
current SRCU code with the separate NMI handle should work fine (for
future merge windows) as long as we're using a separate srcu_struct
for NMI. :-)
>
>> For next merge window (not this one), lets do that then? Paul, if you
>> could provide me an SRCU API that uses local_inc, then I believe that
>> coupled with this patch should be all that's needed:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/972657/
>>
>> Steve did express concern though if in_nmi() works reliably (i.e.
>> tracepoint doesn't fire from "thunk" code before in_nmi() is
>> available). Any thoughts on that Steve?
>
> Agreed, not the upcoming merge window. But we do need to work out
> exactly what is the right way to do this.
Agreed, thanks!
- Joel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-08-08 22:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 57+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-07-30 22:24 [PATCH v12 0/3] tracing: Centralize preemptirq tracepoints and unify their usage Joel Fernandes
2018-07-30 22:24 ` [PATCH v12 1/3] lockdep: use this_cpu_ptr instead of get_cpu_var stats Joel Fernandes
2018-07-30 22:24 ` [PATCH v12 2/3] tracepoint: Make rcuidle tracepoint callers use SRCU Joel Fernandes
2018-07-30 23:10 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-08-10 15:35 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-08-10 16:32 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-07-30 22:24 ` [PATCH v12 3/3] tracing: Centralize preemptirq tracepoints and unify their usage Joel Fernandes
2018-08-06 19:50 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-08-07 0:43 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-08-07 1:43 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-08-07 13:33 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-08-07 13:49 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-08-07 14:10 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-08-07 14:34 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-08-07 14:48 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-08-07 15:09 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-08-07 15:24 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-08-07 23:45 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-08-07 23:54 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-08-08 0:48 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-08-08 1:17 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-08-08 1:55 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-08-08 2:13 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-08-08 2:28 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-08-08 3:44 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-08-08 3:53 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-08-08 5:06 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-08-08 12:46 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-08-08 13:03 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-08-08 13:07 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-08-08 14:33 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-08-08 14:49 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-08-08 15:05 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-08-08 15:23 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-08-08 16:02 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-08-08 16:24 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-08-08 17:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-08-08 13:00 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-08-08 14:10 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-08-08 14:49 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-08-08 19:24 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-08-08 20:18 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-08-08 22:15 ` Joel Fernandes [this message]
2018-08-08 22:47 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-08-09 12:18 ` joel
2018-08-08 14:27 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-08-08 14:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-08-08 15:27 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-08-08 16:03 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-08-02 14:55 ` [PATCH v12 0/3] " Masami Hiramatsu
2018-08-03 2:57 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-08-03 7:23 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2018-08-04 4:51 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-08-05 16:46 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-08-06 2:07 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2018-08-06 15:24 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-08-03 7:34 ` Masami Hiramatsu
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=CAJWu+op0H9vry70YXx6x3e37Sxsgb45go7B9MmE-y2O5wdLOYg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=joelaf@google.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=byungchul.park@lge.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=kernel-team@android.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tom.zanussi@linux.intel.com \
/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).