Re: lots of suspicious RCU traces

[Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>]

On (10/24/12 20:52), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 10/24, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> >
> > On (10/24/12 20:06), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 10/24, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > >
> > > > small question,
> > > >
> > > > ptrace_notify() and forward calls are able to both indirectly and directly call schedule(),
> > > > /* direct call from ptrace_stop()*/,
> > > > should, in this case, rcu_user_enter() be called before tracehook_report_syscall_exit(regs, step)
> > > > and ptrace chain?
> > >
> > > Well, I don't really understand this magic... but why?
> > >
> >
> > My understanding is (I may be wrong)
> 
> Oh, I bet I have much more chances to be wrong ;)
> 
> > that we can schedule() from ptrace chain to
> 
> I don't understand how ptrace chain differs from, say, audit_syscall_exit().
> There is nothing special in ptrace_stop() in this respect.
>

hm.

> > some arbitrary task, which will continue its execution from the point where RCU assumes
> > CPU as not idle, while CPU in fact still in idle state -- no one said rcu_idle_exit()
> 
> confused... of course it would be wrong if syscall_trace_leave() is
> called when CPU is considered idle,
> 

sorry, I meant idle from RCU point of view:

int rcu_is_cpu_idle(void)                                                                                                                                                                                                      
{
         return !rcu_dynticks_nesting;
}



> > if so, does the same apply to in_user?
> 
> Not sure we understand each other. But I believe that ->in_user should be
> already false when syscall_trace_leave() is called.
>

oh, my apology. I was very wrong about this.

	-ss

> 
> Oleg.
>