On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 05:17:31PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

XXX I'm pretty sure I broke task-trace-rcu.

-static noinstr void rcu_dynticks_eqs_enter(void)
-{
-	int seq;
-
-	/*
-	 * CPUs seeing atomic_add_return() must see prior RCU read-side
-	 * critical sections, and we also must force ordering with the
-	 * next idle sojourn.
-	 */
-	rcu_dynticks_task_trace_enter();  // Before ->dynticks update!
-	seq = rcu_dynticks_inc(1);
-	// RCU is no longer watching.  Better be in extended quiescent state!
-	WARN_ON_ONCE(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RCU_EQS_DEBUG) && (seq & 0x1));
-}

-static noinstr void rcu_dynticks_eqs_exit(void)
-{
-	int seq;
-
-	/*
-	 * CPUs seeing atomic_add_return() must see prior idle sojourns,
-	 * and we also must force ordering with the next RCU read-side
-	 * critical section.
-	 */
-	seq = rcu_dynticks_inc(1);
-	// RCU is now watching.  Better not be in an extended quiescent state!
-	rcu_dynticks_task_trace_exit();  // After ->dynticks update!
-	WARN_ON_ONCE(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RCU_EQS_DEBUG) && !(seq & 0x1));
-}

So specifically rcu_dynticks_task_trace_{enter,exit}() are now orphaned.
After this patch, nothing calls them.

However, looking at this again, we've got:

  __context_tracking_enter()
    rcu_user_enter()
      rcu_eqs_enter()
        rcu_dynticks_eqs_enter()
	  rcu_dynticks_task_trace_enter()
	  rcu_dynticks_inc();
	rcu_dynticks_task_enter();

    ct_seq_user_enter()
      atomic_add_return()

and on the other end:

  __context_tracking_exit()
    ct_seq_user_exit()
      atomic_add_return()

    rcu_user_exit()
      rcu_esq_exit()
        rcu_dynticks_task_exit()
	rcu_dynticks_eqs_exit()
	  rcu_dynticks_inc()
	  rcu_dynticks_task_trace_exit()

And since we want to replace dynticks_inc() with ct_seq_*() the
rcu_dynticks_task_{enter,exit}() ought to be pulled before that..

Instead I orphaned rcu_dynticks_task_trace_{enter,exit}() which should
more or less stay where they are.

I seems to have confused the two :/