public inbox for stable@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	<stable@vger.kernel.org>, Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
	Uwe Kleine-Koenig <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Subject: [for-next][PATCH 1/4] ring-buffer: Replace this_cpu_*() with __this_cpu_*()
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 09:00:12 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150325130037.896265791@goodmis.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20150325130011.709478161@goodmis.org

[-- Attachment #1: 0001-ring-buffer-Replace-this_cpu_-with-__this_cpu_.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 3003 bytes --]

From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>

It has come to my attention that this_cpu_read/write are horrible on
architectures other than x86. Worse yet, they actually disable
preemption or interrupts! This caused some unexpected tracing results
on ARM.

   101.356868: preempt_count_add <-ring_buffer_lock_reserve
   101.356870: preempt_count_sub <-ring_buffer_lock_reserve

The ring_buffer_lock_reserve has recursion protection that requires
accessing a per cpu variable. But since preempt_disable() is traced, it
too got traced while accessing the variable that is suppose to prevent
recursion like this.

The generic version of this_cpu_read() and write() are:

 #define this_cpu_generic_read(pcp)					\
 ({	typeof(pcp) ret__;						\
	preempt_disable();						\
	ret__ = *this_cpu_ptr(&(pcp));					\
	preempt_enable();						\
	ret__;								\
 })

 #define this_cpu_generic_to_op(pcp, val, op)				\
 do {									\
	unsigned long flags;						\
	raw_local_irq_save(flags);					\
	*__this_cpu_ptr(&(pcp)) op val;					\
	raw_local_irq_restore(flags);					\
 } while (0)

Which is unacceptable for locations that know they are within preempt
disabled or interrupt disabled locations.

Paul McKenney stated that __this_cpu_() versions produce much better code on
other architectures than this_cpu_() does, if we know that the call is done in
a preempt disabled location.

I also changed the recursive_unlock() to use two local variables instead
of accessing the per_cpu variable twice.

Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20150317114411.GE3589@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20150317104038.312e73d1@gandalf.local.home

Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Acked-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Reported-by: Uwe Kleine-Koenig <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Tested-by: Uwe Kleine-Koenig <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
---
 kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c | 11 +++++------
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
index 5040d44fe5a3..922048a0f7ea 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
@@ -2679,7 +2679,7 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned int, current_context);
 
 static __always_inline int trace_recursive_lock(void)
 {
-	unsigned int val = this_cpu_read(current_context);
+	unsigned int val = __this_cpu_read(current_context);
 	int bit;
 
 	if (in_interrupt()) {
@@ -2696,18 +2696,17 @@ static __always_inline int trace_recursive_lock(void)
 		return 1;
 
 	val |= (1 << bit);
-	this_cpu_write(current_context, val);
+	__this_cpu_write(current_context, val);
 
 	return 0;
 }
 
 static __always_inline void trace_recursive_unlock(void)
 {
-	unsigned int val = this_cpu_read(current_context);
+	unsigned int val = __this_cpu_read(current_context);
 
-	val--;
-	val &= this_cpu_read(current_context);
-	this_cpu_write(current_context, val);
+	val &= val & (val - 1);
+	__this_cpu_write(current_context, val);
 }
 
 #else
-- 
2.1.4



       reply	other threads:[~2015-03-25 13:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20150325130011.709478161@goodmis.org>
2015-03-25 13:00 ` Steven Rostedt [this message]
2015-03-27 19:41   ` [for-next][PATCH 1/4] ring-buffer: Replace this_cpu_*() with __this_cpu_*() Christoph Lameter
2015-03-27 20:11     ` Steven Rostedt
2015-03-30 12:44       ` Christoph Lameter
2015-03-30 13:37         ` Steven Rostedt
2015-03-30 14:32           ` Christoph Lameter
2015-03-27 21:50     ` [PATCH] ring-buffer: Remove duplicate use of '&' in recursive code Steven Rostedt

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=20150325130037.896265791@goodmis.org \
    --to=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cl@linux.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de \
    /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