Re: [PATCH 21/21] tracing: Add optional percpu buffers fortrace_printk()

[Steven Rostedt]

On Fri, 2011-09-23 at 13:07 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-09-23 at 13:02 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 18:09 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > 
> > > Currently, trace_printk() uses a single buffer to write into
> > > to calculate the size and format needed to save the trace. To
> > > do this safely in an SMP environment, a spin_lock() is taken
> > > to only allow one writer at a time to the buffer. But this could
> > > also affect what is being traced, and add synchronization that
> > > would not be there otherwise. 
> > 
> > so trace_printk() isn't NMI safe? #$%@^%@@$%@

It is NMI safe, always was (I use it there too). It has a percpu
recursion detection (always has), thus if an NMI interrupts a current
trace_printk(), the NMI trace_printk() will not print. I could add an
NMI buffer to allow NMIs to print, but so far, we don't usually have
issues with trace_printk(). Heck, I'm not sure printk() wont cause
issues in NMIs. I think trace_printk() is still safer than printk.

> 
> better to make all of trace_printk() depend on that extra config, there
> is absolutely 0 point in having a broken and fully serialized trace
> 'fail^wfeature'.

Not, having per cpu buffers still doesn't allow NMIs to interrupt
trace_printk(). Otherwise the NMI would just corrupt the current percpu
buffer.

-- Steve


--
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/