lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [May]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RESEND 0/3] tracing/mm: Fix suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage warnings


On Wednesday 13 May 2015 02:24 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 12 May 2015 13:36:01 -0700
> Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 12 May 2015 16:03:51 -0400 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 12 May 2015 12:59:26 +0530
>>> Shreyas B Prabhu <shreyas@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Steven,
>>>> On closer look, there is no particular maintainer who picks changes to
>>>> this file. Can you please pick these up?
>>>
>>> Perhaps Andrew Morton?
>>>
>>> No problem, I can take these too.
>>>
>>
>> I grabbed them, thanks.
>>

Thanks Andrew.

>>> + TP_CONDITION(cpu_online(smp_processor_id())),
>>
>> Are we sure these can't generate check_preemption_disabled() warnings?
>> Is there some reason why all these calls always occur with preemption
>> disabled?
>
> Good catch. I don't think the code does.
>
> Now, I'm not sure if we should just add a raw_smp_processor_id(). The
> idea is just to make sure that the CPU we are running on is online,
> because it is possible to call theses trace points when the CPU is
> going offline. If that happens, then there's a race with RCU.
>
> Since a task can not be migrated to an offline CPU, we don't need to
> worry about the cpu_online(smp_processor_id()) returning a false
> positive. A false negative would just skip a tracepoint, but I'm not
> sure that is possible either.
>
> In any case, comments should also be added to why the condition is
> there.
>
I'll send a patch adding the comments.

Thanks,
Shreyas



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-05-13 10:01    [W:0.067 / U:0.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site