Re: [GIT PULL] tracing: use raw spinlocks for trace_vprintk

[Frederic Weisbecker]

On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 07:59:24AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 21:26 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 
> > commit 80370cb758e7ca2692cd9fb5e413d970b1f4b2b2
> > Author: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date:   Tue Mar 10 17:16:35 2009 -0400
> > 
> >     tracing: use raw spinlocks for trace_vprintk
> >     
> >     Impact: prevent locking up by lockdep tracer
> >     
> >     The lockdep tracer uses trace_vprintk and thus trace_vprintk can not
> >     call back into lockdep without locking up.
> 
> Hmm, I did this when I posted the lockdep tracepoints, so someone then
> did a bad copy/paste job when renaming ftrace_printk or something?
> 
> See efed792d6738964f399a508ef9e831cd60fa4657



Must be my bad :-s
I think I lost this modification that was done on the old trace_vprintf
between two iterations of the bprintk patchset.

BTW, Ingo reported one or two monthes ago that ftrace_printk was not NMI safe
because of this spinlock.

He suggested to drop the spinlock and then make trace_buf per_cpu.

By disabling the irq we prevent from race with maskable irqs. And in
case of racy accesses to trace_buf because of an nmi, then the buffer
might be mixed up but it must be harmless compared to a hardlockup that
can occur now. On the worst case, the trace will be weird and that's it.

Frederic.


> >     Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace.c b/kernel/trace/trace.c
> > index 8c6a902..4c97947 100644
> > --- a/kernel/trace/trace.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace.c
> > @@ -1176,7 +1176,8 @@ void trace_graph_return(struct ftrace_graph_ret *trace)
> >   */
> >  int trace_vprintk(unsigned long ip, int depth, const char *fmt, va_list args)
> >  {
> > -	static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(trace_buf_lock);
> > +	static raw_spinlock_t trace_buf_lock =
> > +		(raw_spinlock_t)__RAW_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED;
> >  	static u32 trace_buf[TRACE_BUF_SIZE];
> >  
> >  	struct ring_buffer_event *event;
> > @@ -1201,7 +1202,9 @@ int trace_vprintk(unsigned long ip, int depth, const char *fmt, va_list args)
> >  	if (unlikely(atomic_read(&data->disabled)))
> >  		goto out;
> >  
> > -	spin_lock_irqsave(&trace_buf_lock, flags);
> > +	/* Lockdep uses trace_printk for lock tracing */
> > +	local_irq_save(flags);
> 
> Shouldn't you also use raw_local_irq_save() and friends?
> 
> > +	__raw_spin_lock(&trace_buf_lock);
> >  	len = vbin_printf(trace_buf, TRACE_BUF_SIZE, fmt, args);
> >  
> >  	if (len > TRACE_BUF_SIZE || len < 0)
> > @@ -1220,7 +1223,8 @@ int trace_vprintk(unsigned long ip, int depth, const char *fmt, va_list args)
> >  	ring_buffer_unlock_commit(tr->buffer, event);
> >  
> >  out_unlock:
> > -	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&trace_buf_lock, flags);
> > +	__raw_spin_unlock(&trace_buf_lock);
> > +	local_irq_restore(flags);
> >  
> >  out:
> >  	ftrace_preempt_enable(resched);
> > 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/