li.kr...@googlemail.com, vgu...@kernel.org, linux-...@vger.kernel.org,
j...@joshtriplett.org, rost...@goodmis.org, r...@vger.kernel.org,
b...@alien8.de, bc...@quicinc.com, tsbog...@alpha.franken.de,
linux-par...@vger.kernel.org, sudeep.ho...@arm.com, shawn...@kernel.org,
da...@davemloft.net, dal...@libc.org, t...@atomide.com, amakha...@vmware.com,
bjorn.anders...@linaro.org, h...@zytor.com, sparcli...@vger.kernel.org,
linux-hexa...@vger.kernel.org, linux-ri...@lists.infradead.org,
anton.iva...@cambridgegreys.com, jo...@southpole.se, yury.no...@gmail.com,
rich...@nod.at, x...@kernel.org, li...@armlinux.org.uk, mi...@redhat.com,
a...@eecs.berkeley.edu, paul...@kernel.org, h...@linux.ibm.com,
stefan.kristians...@saunalahti.fi, openr...@lists.librecores.org,
paul.walms...@sifive.com, linux-te...@vger.kernel.org, namhy...@kernel.org,
andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com, jpoim...@kernel.org, jgr...@suse.com,
mon...@monstr.eu, linux-m...@vger.kernel.org, pal...@dabbelt.com,
a...@brainfault.org, ink@
jurassic.park.msu.ru, johan...@sipsolutions.net, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+archive=mail-archive....@lists.ozlabs.org
Sender: "Linuxppc-dev"
<linuxppc-dev-bounces+archive=mail-archive....@lists.ozlabs.org>
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.
> >
> > Per the patches earlier in this series, this is no longer the case.
>
> My understanding is that this series reduces a lot the amount
> of code called with RCU disabled. As a result the particular printk()
> call mentioned by commit fc98c3c8c9dc ("printk: use rcuidle console
> tracepoint") is called with RCU enabled now. Hence this particular
> problem is fixed better way now.
>
> But is this true in general?
> 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.
> I am not sure if anyone cares. printk() is the best effort
> functionality because of the consoles code anyway. Also I wonder
> if anyone uses this trace_console().
This is the tracepoint used to spool all of printk into ftrace, I
suspect there's users, but I haven't used it myself.
> 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.
