Re: [PATCH v2 6/9] perf,tracing: Prepare the perf-trace interface for RCU changes
From: Joel Fernandes <hidden>
Date: 2020-02-13 18:38:28
Also in:
lkml
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 09:29:51AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 06:28:30PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:quoted
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 10:01:45PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:quoted
The tracepoint interface will stop providing regular RCU context; make sure we do it ourselves, since perf makes use of regular RCU protected data. Suggested-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <redacted> Suggested-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> --- kernel/events/core.c | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)--- a/kernel/events/core.c +++ b/kernel/events/core.c@@ -8950,6 +8950,7 @@ void perf_tp_event(u16 event_type, u64 c { struct perf_sample_data data; struct perf_event *event; + unsigned long rcu_flags;The flags are not needed I guess, if you agree on not using in_nmi() in trace_rcu_enter().Even then we need to store the state: 'didn't do nothing' vs 'did call rcu_needs_to_wake_up_and_pay_attention_noaw'. That is, we only need to do something (expensive!) when !rcu_is_watching().
You are right, that sounds good. I was talking to Paul and we chatted that if in_nmi() is safe (which I believe it is as we are not calling RCU before you update the preempt counts), then in RCU we can replace the @irq with !in_nmi() and simplify that code. Then we can simplify this bit as well (keep rcu_flags but only call rcu_irq_enter_irqsave() instead of rcu_nmi_enter(). May be you can do the RCU internal bits in your v3 or should those be separate patches? Whatever Paul and you want to do. thanks, - Joel - Joel