Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] tracing: Make sure RCU is watching before calling a stack trace

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 02:36:19PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 12 May 2017 11:25:35 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 01:15:45PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > From: "Steven Rostedt (VMware)" <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> > > 
> > > As stack tracing now requires "rcu watching", force RCU to be watching when
> > > recording a stack trace.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@goodmis.org>  
> > 
> > Assuming that you never get to __trace_stack() if in an NMI handler,
> > this looks good to me!
> > 
> > In contrast, if if __trace_stack() ever is called from an NMI handler,
> > invoking rcu_irq_enter() can be fatal.
> 
> Then someone may die.
> 
> OK, what's the case of running this in nmi? How does perf do it?

I have no idea.  If it cannot happen, then it cannot happen and all
is well, RCU is happy, and I am happy.  ;-)

> Do we just skip the check if it is in an nmi?
> 
> 	if (!in_nmi()) {
> 		if (unlikely(rcu_irq_enter_disabled()))
> 			return;
> 		rcu_irq_enter();
> 	}
> 
> 	__ftrace_trace_stack();
> 
> 	if (!in_nmi())
> 		rcu_irq_exit();
> 
> ?

If it -can- happen, bail out of the function without doing the
__ftrace_trace_stack()?  Or does that just cause other problems further
down the road?  Or BUG_ON(in_nmi())?

But again if it cannot happen, no problem and no need for extra code.

							Thanx, Paul