lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jun]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 24/36] printk: Remove trace_.*_rcuidle() usage
On Thu 2022-06-09 12:02:04, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 11:16:46AM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Wed 2022-06-08 16:27:47, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > The problem, per commit fc98c3c8c9dc ("printk: use rcuidle console
> > > tracepoint"), was printk usage from the cpuidle path where RCU was
> > > already disabled.
> > >
> > Does this "prevent" calling printk() a safe way in code with
> > RCU disabled?
>
> On x86_64, yes. Other architectures, less so.
>
> Specifically, the objtool noinstr validation pass will warn at build
> time (DEBUG_ENTRY=y) if any noinstr/cpuidle code does a call to
> non-vetted code like printk().
>
> At the same time; there's a few hacks that allow WARN to work, but
> mostly if you hit WARN in entry/noinstr you get to keep the pieces in
> any case.
>
> On other architecture we'll need to rely on runtime coverage with
> PROVE_RCU. That is, if a splat like in the above mentioned commit
> happens again, we'll need to fix it by adjusting the callchain, not by
> mucking about with RCU state.

Makes sense. Feel free to use for this patch:

Acked-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>

> > Therefore if this patch allows to remove some tricky tracing
> > code then it might be worth it. But if trace_console_rcuidle()
> > variant is still going to be available then I would keep using it.
>
> My ultimate goal is to delete trace_.*_rcuidle() and RCU_NONIDLE()
> entirely. We're close, but not quite there yet.

I keep my fingers crossed.

Best Regards,
Petr

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-06-09 15:07    [W:0.150 / U:1.500 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site