lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [patch 4/8] x86/entry: Move irq tracing on syscall entry to C-code
Date


> On Mar 1, 2020, at 11:30 AM, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 01, 2020 at 10:54:23AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 10:26 AM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 01, 2020 at 07:12:25PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>> Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> writes:
>>>>> On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 7:21 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
>>>>>> Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> writes:
>>>>>>>> On Mar 1, 2020, at 2:16 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ok, but for the time being anything before/after CONTEXT_KERNEL is unsafe
>>>>>>>> except trace_hardirq_off/on() as those trace functions do not allow to
>>>>>>>> attach anything AFAICT.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can you point to whatever makes those particular functions special? I
>>>>>>> failed to follow the macro maze.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Those are not tracepoints and not going through the macro maze. See
>>>>>> kernel/trace/trace_preemptirq.c
>>>>>
>>>>> That has:
>>>>>
>>>>> void trace_hardirqs_on(void)
>>>>> {
>>>>> if (this_cpu_read(tracing_irq_cpu)) {
>>>>> if (!in_nmi())
>>>>> trace_irq_enable_rcuidle(CALLER_ADDR0, CALLER_ADDR1);
>>>>> tracer_hardirqs_on(CALLER_ADDR0, CALLER_ADDR1);
>>>>> this_cpu_write(tracing_irq_cpu, 0);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> lockdep_hardirqs_on(CALLER_ADDR0);
>>>>> }
>>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(trace_hardirqs_on);
>>>>> NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(trace_hardirqs_on);
>>>>>
>>>>> But this calls trace_irq_enable_rcuidle(), and that's the part of the
>>>>> macro maze I got lost in. I found:
>>>>>
>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS
>>>>> DEFINE_EVENT(preemptirq_template, irq_disable,
>>>>> TP_PROTO(unsigned long ip, unsigned long parent_ip),
>>>>> TP_ARGS(ip, parent_ip));
>>>>>
>>>>> DEFINE_EVENT(preemptirq_template, irq_enable,
>>>>> TP_PROTO(unsigned long ip, unsigned long parent_ip),
>>>>> TP_ARGS(ip, parent_ip));
>>>>> #else
>>>>> #define trace_irq_enable(...)
>>>>> #define trace_irq_disable(...)
>>>>> #define trace_irq_enable_rcuidle(...)
>>>>> #define trace_irq_disable_rcuidle(...)
>>>>> #endif
>>>>>
>>>>> But the DEFINE_EVENT doesn't have the "_rcuidle" part. And that's
>>>>> where I got lost in the macro maze. I looked at the gcc asm output,
>>>>> and there is, indeed:
>>>>
>>>> DEFINE_EVENT
>>>> DECLARE_TRACE
>>>> __DECLARE_TRACE
>>>> __DECLARE_TRACE_RCU
>>>> static inline void trace_##name##_rcuidle(proto)
>>>> __DO_TRACE
>>>> if (rcuidle)
>>>> ....
>>>>
>>>>> But I also don't see why this is any different from any other tracepoint.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed. I took a wrong turn at some point in the macro jungle :)
>>>>
>>>> So tracing itself is fine, but then if you have probes or bpf programs
>>>> attached to a tracepoint these use rcu_read_lock()/unlock() which is
>>>> obviosly wrong in rcuidle context.
>>>
>>> Definitely, any such code needs to use tricks similar to that of the
>>> tracing code. Or instead use something like SRCU, which is OK with
>>> readers from idle. Or use something like Steve Rostedt's workqueue-based
>>> approach, though please be very careful with this latter, lest the
>>> battery-powered embedded guys come after you for waking up idle CPUs
>>> too often. ;-)
>>
>> Are we okay if we somehow ensure that all the entry code before
>> enter_from_user_mode() only does rcuidle tracing variants and has
>> kprobes off? Including for BPF use cases?
>
> That would work, though if BPF used SRCU instead of RCU, this would
> be unnecessary. Sadly, SRCU has full memory barriers in each of
> srcu_read_lock() and srcu_read_unlock(), but we are working on it.
> (As always, no promises!)
>
>> It would be *really* nice if we could statically verify this, as has
>> been mentioned elsewhere in the thread. It would also probably be
>> good enough if we could do it at runtime. Maybe with lockdep on, we
>> verify rcu state in tracepoints even if the tracepoint isn't active?
>> And we could plausibly have some widget that could inject something
>> into *every* kprobeable function to check rcu state.
>
> Or just have at least one testing step that activates all tracepoints,
> but with lockdep enabled?

Also kprobe.

I don’t suppose we could make notrace imply nokprobe. Then all kprobeable functions would also have entry/exit tracepoints, right?
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-01 20:41    [W:0.117 / U:4.252 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site