From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1758869AbdELSuQ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 12 May 2017 14:50:16 -0400
Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:34188 "EHLO
        mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL)
        by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758809AbdELSuO (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 12 May 2017 14:50:14 -0400
Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 11:50:03 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] tracing: Make sure RCU is watching before
 calling a stack trace
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <20170512171544.100715273@goodmis.org>
 <20170512172449.879684501@goodmis.org>
 <20170512182535.GZ3956@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20170512143619.281db952@gandalf.local.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170512143619.281db952@gandalf.local.home>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
x-cbid: 17051218-0056-0000-0000-00000362413A
X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: 
X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00007051; HX=3.00000241; KW=3.00000007;
 PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000211; SDB=6.00859626; UDB=6.00426129; IPR=6.00639209;
 BA=6.00005345; NDR=6.00000001; ZLA=6.00000005; ZF=6.00000009; ZB=6.00000000;
 ZP=6.00000000; ZH=6.00000000; ZU=6.00000002; MB=3.00015431; XFM=3.00000015;
 UTC=2017-05-12 18:50:06
X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused
x-cbparentid: 17051218-0057-0000-0000-000007986A2D
Message-Id: <20170512185003.GC3956@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2017-05-12_11:,,
 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0
 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam
 adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1703280000
 definitions=main-1705120351
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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