On Tue, Dec 03, 2024 at 10:01:53PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 17:48:33 -0800
> Guenter Roeck <li...@roeck-us.net> wrote:
>
> > Hmm. If you say so. Note that powerpc has the same or a similar problem.
> >
> > [ 0.142039][ T0] RCU not watching for tracepoint
> > [ 0.142488][ T0]
> > [ 0.142659][ T0] =============================
> > [ 0.142755][ T0] WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
> > [ 0.142914][ T0] 6.13.0-rc1-00058-ge75ce84aa5d3 #1 Not tainted
> > [ 0.143082][ T0] -----------------------------
> > [ 0.143178][ T0] kernel/notifier.c:586 notify_die called but RCU
> > thinks we're quiescent!
> >
> >
> > [ 0.152733][ T0] RCU not watching for tracepoint
> > [ 0.152770][ T0]
> > [ 0.152995][ T0] =============================
> > [ 0.153092][ T0] WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
> > [ 0.153187][ T0] 6.13.0-rc1-00058-ge75ce84aa5d3 #1 Not tainted
> > [ 0.153301][ T0] -----------------------------
> > [ 0.153394][ T0] include/linux/rcupdate.h:850 rcu_read_lock() used
> > illegally while idle!
> >
> > [ 0.165396][ T0] RCU not watching for tracepoint
> > [ 0.165540][ T0]
> > [ 0.165712][ T0] =============================
> > [ 0.165811][ T0] WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
> > [ 0.165909][ T0] 6.13.0-rc1-00058-ge75ce84aa5d3 #1 Not tainted
> > [ 0.166026][ T0] -----------------------------
> > [ 0.166122][ T0] include/linux/rcupdate.h:878 rcu_read_unlock() used
> > illegally while idle!
> >
> > and many more.
>
> Grumble. It's just that one file. I wonder if we could just do a hack like
> this?
>
> Paul?
Looks plausible to me, though I don't understand why the introduction
of trace() doesn't permit removal of the corresponding current code.
(Or did I miss a previous patch that did just that?)
Thanx, Paul
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_preemptirq.c b/kernel/trace/trace_preemptirq.c
> index 5c03633316a6..58098873efa9 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/trace_preemptirq.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_preemptirq.c
> @@ -10,11 +10,42 @@
> #include <linux/module.h>
> #include <linux/ftrace.h>
> #include <linux/kprobes.h>
> +#include <linux/hardirq.h>
> #include "trace.h"
>
> #define CREATE_TRACE_POINTS
> #include <trace/events/preemptirq.h>
>
> +/*
> + * Use regular trace points on architectures that implement noinstr
> + * tooling: these calls will only happen with RCU enabled, which can
> + * use a regular tracepoint.
> + *
> + * On older architectures, RCU may not be watching in idle. In that
> + * case, wake up RCU to watch while calling the tracepoint. These
> + * aren't NMI-safe - so exclude NMI contexts:
> + */
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_WANTS_NO_INSTR
> +#define trace(point, args) trace_##point(args)
> +#else
> +#define trace(point, args) \
> + do { \
> + if (trace_##point##_enabled()) { \
> + bool exit_rcu = false; \
> + if (in_nmi()) \
> + break; \
> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_TINY_RCU) && \
> + is_idle_task(current)) { \
> + ct_irq_enter(); \
> + exit_rcu = true; \
> + } \
> + trace_##point(args); \
> + if (exit_rcu) \
> + ct_irq_exit(); \
> + } \
> + } while (0)
> +#endif
> +
> #ifdef CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS
> /* Per-cpu variable to prevent redundant calls when IRQs already off */
> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, tracing_irq_cpu);
> @@ -28,7 +59,7 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, tracing_irq_cpu);
> void trace_hardirqs_on_prepare(void)
> {
> if (this_cpu_read(tracing_irq_cpu)) {
> - trace_irq_enable(CALLER_ADDR0, CALLER_ADDR1);
> + trace(irq_enable, TP_ARGS(CALLER_ADDR0, CALLER_ADDR1));
> tracer_hardirqs_on(CALLER_ADDR0, CALLER_ADDR1);
> this_cpu_write(tracing_irq_cpu, 0);
> }
> @@ -39,7 +70,7 @@ NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(trace_hardirqs_on_prepare);
> void trace_hardirqs_on(void)
> {
> if (this_cpu_read(tracing_irq_cpu)) {
> - trace_irq_enable(CALLER_ADDR0, CALLER_ADDR1);
> + trace(irq_enable, TP_ARGS(CALLER_ADDR0, CALLER_ADDR1));
> tracer_hardirqs_on(CALLER_ADDR0, CALLER_ADDR1);
> this_cpu_write(tracing_irq_cpu, 0);
> }
> @@ -61,7 +92,7 @@ void trace_hardirqs_off_finish(void)
> if (!this_cpu_read(tracing_irq_cpu)) {
> this_cpu_write(tracing_irq_cpu, 1);
> tracer_hardirqs_off(CALLER_ADDR0, CALLER_ADDR1);
> - trace_irq_disable(CALLER_ADDR0, CALLER_ADDR1);
> + trace(irq_disable, TP_ARGS(CALLER_ADDR0, CALLER_ADDR1));
> }
>
> }
> @@ -75,7 +106,7 @@ void trace_hardirqs_off(void)
> if (!this_cpu_read(tracing_irq_cpu)) {
> this_cpu_write(tracing_irq_cpu, 1);
> tracer_hardirqs_off(CALLER_ADDR0, CALLER_ADDR1);
> - trace_irq_disable(CALLER_ADDR0, CALLER_ADDR1);
> + trace(irq_disable, TP_ARGS(CALLER_ADDR0, CALLER_ADDR1));
> }
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(trace_hardirqs_off);
> @@ -86,13 +117,13 @@ NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(trace_hardirqs_off);
>
> void trace_preempt_on(unsigned long a0, unsigned long a1)
> {
> - trace_preempt_enable(a0, a1);
> + trace(preempt_enable, TP_ARGS(a0, a1));
> tracer_preempt_on(a0, a1);
> }
>
> void trace_preempt_off(unsigned long a0, unsigned long a1)
> {
> - trace_preempt_disable(a0, a1);
> + trace(preempt_disable, TP_ARGS(a0, a1));
> tracer_preempt_off(a0, a1);
> }
> #endif
>
>
> I tested this by forcing x86 to use this code, and it appeared to work.
>
> -- Steve
