From: rostedt at goodmis.org (Steven Rostedt)
Subject: [PATCH v9 4/7] tracepoint: Make rcuidle tracepoint callers use SRCU
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 09:35:12 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180712093512.1f612a24@gandalf.local.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180712042825.GA154647@joelaf.mtv.corp.google.com>
On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 21:28:25 -0700
Joel Fernandes <joel at joelfernandes.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 11:21:20PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 13:52:49 -0700
> > Joel Fernandes <joel at joelfernandes.org> wrote:
> >
> > > > #define __DECLARE_TRACE(name, proto, args, cond, data_proto, data_args) \
> > > > extern struct tracepoint __tracepoint_##name; \
> > > > static inline void trace_##name(proto) \
> > > > { \
> > > > if (static_key_false(&__tracepoint_##name.key)) \
> > > > __DO_TRACE(&__tracepoint_##name, \
> > > > TP_PROTO(data_proto), \
> > > > TP_ARGS(data_args), \
> > > > TP_CONDITION(cond), 0); \
> > > > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LOCKDEP) && (cond)) { \
> > > > rcu_read_lock_sched_notrace(); \
> > > > rcu_dereference_sched(__tracepoint_##name.funcs);\
> > > > rcu_read_unlock_sched_notrace(); \
> > > > } \
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > Because lockdep would only trigger warnings when the tracepoint was
> > > > enabled and used in a place it shouldn't be, we added the above
> > > > IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LOCKDEP) part to test regardless if the the
> > > > tracepoint was enabled or not. Because we do this, we don't need to
> > > > have the test in the __DO_TRACE() code itself. That means we can clean
> > > > up the code as per Peter's suggestion.
> > >
> > > Sounds good, I'm Ok with making this change.
> > >
> > > Just to clarify, are you proposing to change the rcu_dereference_sched to
> > > rcu_dereference_raw in both __DECLARE_TRACE and __DO_TRACE?
> >
> > No, just in __DO_TRACE(). The rcu_dereference_sched() above in
> > __DECLARE_TRACE() in the if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LOCKDEP) block is
> > required to show the warnings if trace_##name() is used wrong, and is
> > the reason we can use rcu_dereference_raw() in __DO_TRACE() in the
> > first place ;-)
> >
> > This brings up another point. We should probably add to
> > __DECLARE_TRACE_RCU() this:
> >
> > #ifndef MODULE
> > #define __DECLARE_TRACE_RCU(name, proto, args, cond, data_proto, data_args) \
> > static inline void trace_##name##_rcuidle(proto) \
> > { \
> > if (static_key_false(&__tracepoint_##name.key)) \
> > __DO_TRACE(&__tracepoint_##name, \
> > TP_PROTO(data_proto), \
> > TP_ARGS(data_args), \
> > TP_CONDITION(cond), 1); \
> > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LOCKDEP) && (cond)) { \
> > + int idx; \
> > + idx = srcu_read_lock_notrace(&tracepoint_srcu); \
> > + srcu_dereference_notrace(__tracepoint_##name.funcs, \
> > + &tracepoint_srcu); \
> > + srcu_read_unlock_notrace(&tracepoint_srcu, idx); \
> > + } \
> > }
> > #else
> >
> >
> > So that lockdep works with trace_##name##__rcuidle() when the trace
> > event is not enabled.
> >
> > But that should be a separate patch and not part of this series. I may
> > write that up tomorrow.
>
> Yes, that sounds good to me and would be good to add the safe guard there.
> But you meant srcu_dereference above, not srcu_dereference_notrace right?
We don't need to trace them. I believe that the "srcu_*_notrace" still
performs the lockdep checks. That's what we want. If they don't then we
should not use notrace. But I believe they still do lockdep.
-- 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: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 09:35:12 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180712093512.1f612a24@gandalf.local.home> (raw)
Message-ID: <20180712133512.CMTPOi-CeOhkwv_moxnVciuZbGA2sRHDtoKP-du7gFA@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180712042825.GA154647@joelaf.mtv.corp.google.com>
On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 21:28:25 -0700
Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018@11:21:20PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 13:52:49 -0700
> > Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> wrote:
> >
> > > > #define __DECLARE_TRACE(name, proto, args, cond, data_proto, data_args) \
> > > > extern struct tracepoint __tracepoint_##name; \
> > > > static inline void trace_##name(proto) \
> > > > { \
> > > > if (static_key_false(&__tracepoint_##name.key)) \
> > > > __DO_TRACE(&__tracepoint_##name, \
> > > > TP_PROTO(data_proto), \
> > > > TP_ARGS(data_args), \
> > > > TP_CONDITION(cond), 0); \
> > > > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LOCKDEP) && (cond)) { \
> > > > rcu_read_lock_sched_notrace(); \
> > > > rcu_dereference_sched(__tracepoint_##name.funcs);\
> > > > rcu_read_unlock_sched_notrace(); \
> > > > } \
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > Because lockdep would only trigger warnings when the tracepoint was
> > > > enabled and used in a place it shouldn't be, we added the above
> > > > IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LOCKDEP) part to test regardless if the the
> > > > tracepoint was enabled or not. Because we do this, we don't need to
> > > > have the test in the __DO_TRACE() code itself. That means we can clean
> > > > up the code as per Peter's suggestion.
> > >
> > > Sounds good, I'm Ok with making this change.
> > >
> > > Just to clarify, are you proposing to change the rcu_dereference_sched to
> > > rcu_dereference_raw in both __DECLARE_TRACE and __DO_TRACE?
> >
> > No, just in __DO_TRACE(). The rcu_dereference_sched() above in
> > __DECLARE_TRACE() in the if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LOCKDEP) block is
> > required to show the warnings if trace_##name() is used wrong, and is
> > the reason we can use rcu_dereference_raw() in __DO_TRACE() in the
> > first place ;-)
> >
> > This brings up another point. We should probably add to
> > __DECLARE_TRACE_RCU() this:
> >
> > #ifndef MODULE
> > #define __DECLARE_TRACE_RCU(name, proto, args, cond, data_proto, data_args) \
> > static inline void trace_##name##_rcuidle(proto) \
> > { \
> > if (static_key_false(&__tracepoint_##name.key)) \
> > __DO_TRACE(&__tracepoint_##name, \
> > TP_PROTO(data_proto), \
> > TP_ARGS(data_args), \
> > TP_CONDITION(cond), 1); \
> > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LOCKDEP) && (cond)) { \
> > + int idx; \
> > + idx = srcu_read_lock_notrace(&tracepoint_srcu); \
> > + srcu_dereference_notrace(__tracepoint_##name.funcs, \
> > + &tracepoint_srcu); \
> > + srcu_read_unlock_notrace(&tracepoint_srcu, idx); \
> > + } \
> > }
> > #else
> >
> >
> > So that lockdep works with trace_##name##__rcuidle() when the trace
> > event is not enabled.
> >
> > But that should be a separate patch and not part of this series. I may
> > write that up tomorrow.
>
> Yes, that sounds good to me and would be good to add the safe guard there.
> But you meant srcu_dereference above, not srcu_dereference_notrace right?
We don't need to trace them. I believe that the "srcu_*_notrace" still
performs the lockdep checks. That's what we want. If they don't then we
should not use notrace. But I believe they still do lockdep.
-- 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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-07-12 13:35 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 [this message]
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
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=20180712093512.1f612a24@gandalf.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).