linux-kselftest.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: rostedt at goodmis.org (Steven Rostedt)
Subject: [PATCH v9 4/7] tracepoint: Make rcuidle tracepoint callers use SRCU
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 21:26:26 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180711212626.5992e2c8@vmware.local.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180712003100.GC32091@joelaf.mtv.corp.google.com>

On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 17:31:00 -0700
Joel Fernandes <joel at joelfernandes.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 09:06:49AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 14:56:47 +0200
> > Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead.org> wrote:
> >   
> > > On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 11:21:46AM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:  
> > > >  static inline void tracepoint_synchronize_unregister(void)
> > > >  {
> > > > +	synchronize_srcu(&tracepoint_srcu);
> > > >  	synchronize_sched();
> > > >  }    
> > > 
> > > Given you below do call_rcu_sched() and then call_srcu(), isn't the
> > > above the wrong way around?  
> > 
> > Good catch!
> > 
> > 	release_probes()
> > 		call_rcu_sched()  
> > 			---> rcu_free_old_probes() queued  
> > 
> > 	tracepoint_synchronize_unregister()
> > 		synchronize_srcu(&tracepoint_srcu);
> > 			< finishes right away >
> > 		synchronize_sched()  
> > 			--> rcu_free_old_probes()
> > 				--> srcu_free_old_probes() queued  
> > 	
> > Here tracepoint_synchronize_unregister() returned before the srcu
> > portion ran.  
> 
> But isn't the point of synchronize_rcu to make sure that we're no longer in
> an RCU read-side section, not that *all* queued callbacks already ran? So in that
> case, I think it doesn't matter which order the 2 synchronize functions are
> called in. Please let me know if if I missed something!
> 
> I believe what we're trying to guarantee here is that no tracepoints using
> either flavor of RCU are active after tracepoint_synchronize_unregister
> returns.

Yes you are correct. If tracepoint_synchronize_unregister() is only to
make sure that there is no more trace events using the probes, then
this should work. I was focused on looking at it with release_probes()
too. So the patch is fine as is.

-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kselftest" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: rostedt@goodmis.org (Steven Rostedt)
Subject: [PATCH v9 4/7] tracepoint: Make rcuidle tracepoint callers use SRCU
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 21:26:26 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180711212626.5992e2c8@vmware.local.home> (raw)
Message-ID: <20180712012626.ZCIl-LMl4Ypp522XheX_JzEqeWHli846bK-j6XRs1ls@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180712003100.GC32091@joelaf.mtv.corp.google.com>

On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 17:31:00 -0700
Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018@09:06:49AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 14:56:47 +0200
> > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> >   
> > > On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 11:21:46AM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:  
> > > >  static inline void tracepoint_synchronize_unregister(void)
> > > >  {
> > > > +	synchronize_srcu(&tracepoint_srcu);
> > > >  	synchronize_sched();
> > > >  }    
> > > 
> > > Given you below do call_rcu_sched() and then call_srcu(), isn't the
> > > above the wrong way around?  
> > 
> > Good catch!
> > 
> > 	release_probes()
> > 		call_rcu_sched()  
> > 			---> rcu_free_old_probes() queued  
> > 
> > 	tracepoint_synchronize_unregister()
> > 		synchronize_srcu(&tracepoint_srcu);
> > 			< finishes right away >
> > 		synchronize_sched()  
> > 			--> rcu_free_old_probes()
> > 				--> srcu_free_old_probes() queued  
> > 	
> > Here tracepoint_synchronize_unregister() returned before the srcu
> > portion ran.  
> 
> But isn't the point of synchronize_rcu to make sure that we're no longer in
> an RCU read-side section, not that *all* queued callbacks already ran? So in that
> case, I think it doesn't matter which order the 2 synchronize functions are
> called in. Please let me know if if I missed something!
> 
> I believe what we're trying to guarantee here is that no tracepoints using
> either flavor of RCU are active after tracepoint_synchronize_unregister
> returns.

Yes you are correct. If tracepoint_synchronize_unregister() is only to
make sure that there is no more trace events using the probes, then
this should work. I was focused on looking at it with release_probes()
too. So the patch is fine as is.

-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kselftest" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

  parent reply	other threads:[~2018-07-12  1:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 104+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-06-28 18:21 [PATCH v9 0/7] Centralize and unify usage of preempt/irq tracepoints joel
2018-06-28 18:21 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-06-28 18:21 ` [PATCH v9 1/7] srcu: Add notrace variants of srcu_read_{lock,unlock} joel
2018-06-28 18:21   ` Joel Fernandes
2018-06-28 18:21 ` [PATCH v9 2/7] srcu: Add notrace variant of srcu_dereference joel
2018-06-28 18:21   ` Joel Fernandes
2018-06-28 18:21 ` [PATCH v9 3/7] trace/irqsoff: Split reset into separate functions joel
2018-06-28 18:21   ` Joel Fernandes
2018-06-28 18:21 ` [PATCH v9 4/7] tracepoint: Make rcuidle tracepoint callers use SRCU joel
2018-06-28 18:21   ` Joel Fernandes
2018-07-11 12:49   ` peterz
2018-07-11 12:49     ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-11 13:00     ` rostedt
2018-07-11 13:00       ` Steven Rostedt
2018-07-11 14:27       ` paulmck
2018-07-11 14:27         ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-11 14:46         ` rostedt
2018-07-11 14:46           ` Steven Rostedt
2018-07-11 15:15           ` paulmck
2018-07-11 15:15             ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-11 20:56             ` joel
2018-07-11 20:56               ` Joel Fernandes
2018-07-12  1:22               ` rostedt
2018-07-12  1:22                 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-07-12  2:35                 ` joel
2018-07-12  2:35                   ` Joel Fernandes
2018-07-11 20:52           ` joel
2018-07-11 20:52             ` Joel Fernandes
2018-07-12  3:21             ` rostedt
2018-07-12  3:21               ` Steven Rostedt
2018-07-12  4:28               ` joel
2018-07-12  4:28                 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-07-12 13:35                 ` rostedt
2018-07-12 13:35                   ` Steven Rostedt
2018-07-12 19:17                   ` joel
2018-07-12 19:17                     ` Joel Fernandes
2018-07-12 20:15                     ` rostedt
2018-07-12 20:15                       ` Steven Rostedt
2018-07-12 20:29                       ` joel
2018-07-12 20:29                         ` Joel Fernandes
2018-07-12 20:31                         ` rostedt
2018-07-12 20:31                           ` Steven Rostedt
2018-07-11 12:53   ` peterz
2018-07-11 12:53     ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-12  2:32     ` joel
2018-07-12  2:32       ` Joel Fernandes
2018-07-11 12:56   ` peterz
2018-07-11 12:56     ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-11 13:06     ` rostedt
2018-07-11 13:06       ` Steven Rostedt
2018-07-11 15:17       ` peterz
2018-07-11 15:17         ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-11 15:26         ` rostedt
2018-07-11 15:26           ` Steven Rostedt
2018-07-11 16:46           ` mathieu.desnoyers
2018-07-11 16:46             ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-11 16:40         ` mathieu.desnoyers
2018-07-11 16:40           ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-12  0:31       ` joel
2018-07-12  0:31         ` Joel Fernandes
2018-07-12  1:26         ` rostedt [this message]
2018-07-12  1:26           ` Steven Rostedt
2018-06-28 18:21 ` [PATCH v9 5/7] tracing: Centralize preemptirq tracepoints and unify their usage joel
2018-06-28 18:21   ` Joel Fernandes
2018-07-06 22:06   ` rostedt
2018-07-06 22:06     ` Steven Rostedt
2018-07-07  4:20     ` joel
2018-07-07  4:20       ` Joel Fernandes
2018-07-10 14:20   ` rostedt
2018-07-10 14:20     ` Steven Rostedt
2018-07-10 17:33     ` joel
2018-07-10 17:33       ` Joel Fernandes
2018-07-11 13:12   ` peterz
2018-07-11 13:12     ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-11 13:19     ` rostedt
2018-07-11 13:19       ` Steven Rostedt
2018-07-11 13:22       ` rostedt
2018-07-11 13:22         ` Steven Rostedt
2018-07-12  8:38       ` joel
2018-07-12  8:38         ` Joel Fernandes
2018-07-12 13:37         ` rostedt
2018-07-12 13:37           ` Steven Rostedt
2018-07-12  0:44     ` joel
2018-07-12  0:44       ` Joel Fernandes
2018-06-28 18:21 ` [PATCH v9 6/7] lib: Add module to simulate atomic sections for testing preemptoff tracers joel
2018-06-28 18:21   ` Joel Fernandes
2018-07-11  0:47   ` rostedt
2018-07-11  0:47     ` Steven Rostedt
2018-07-11  5:26     ` joel
2018-07-11  5:26       ` Joel Fernandes
2018-06-28 18:21 ` [PATCH v9 7/7] kselftests: Add tests for the preemptoff and irqsoff tracers joel
2018-06-28 18:21   ` Joel Fernandes
2018-07-11  0:49   ` rostedt
2018-07-11  0:49     ` Steven Rostedt
2018-07-11  5:27     ` joel
2018-07-11  5:27       ` Joel Fernandes
2018-07-03 14:15 ` [PATCH v9 0/7] Centralize and unify usage of preempt/irq tracepoints joel
2018-07-03 14:15   ` Joel Fernandes
2018-07-03 14:23   ` rostedt
2018-07-03 14:23     ` Steven Rostedt
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2018-06-21 22:32 joel
2018-06-21 22:32 ` [PATCH v9 4/7] tracepoint: Make rcuidle tracepoint callers use SRCU joel
2018-06-21 22:32   ` Joel Fernandes
2018-06-07 20:38 [PATCH v9 0/7] Centralize and unify usage of preempt/irq joelaf
2018-06-07 20:38 ` [PATCH v9 4/7] tracepoint: Make rcuidle tracepoint callers use SRCU joelaf
2018-06-07 20:38   ` Joel Fernandes

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=20180711212626.5992e2c8@vmware.local.home \
    --to=linux-kselftest@vger.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).