Virtualization - Jun 2022 - [PATCH 24/36] printk: Remove trace_.*_rcuidle() usage

On Wed 2022-06-08 16:27:47, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> The problem, per commit fc98c3c8c9dc ("printk: use rcuidle console
> tracepoint"), was printk usage from the cpuidle path where RCU was
> already disabled.
> 
> Per the patches earlier in this series, this is no longer the case.
My understanding is that this series reduces a lot the amount
of code called with RCU disabled. As a result the particular printk()
call mentioned by commit fc98c3c8c9dc ("printk: use rcuidle console
tracepoint") is called with RCU enabled now. Hence this particular
problem is fixed better way now.

But is this true in general?
Does this "prevent" calling printk() a safe way in code with
RCU disabled?

I am not sure if anyone cares. printk() is the best effort
functionality because of the consoles code anyway. Also I wonder
if anyone uses this trace_console().

Therefore if this patch allows to remove some tricky tracing
code then it might be worth it. But if trace_console_rcuidle()
variant is still going to be available then I would keep using it.

Best Regards,
Petr
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz at infradead.org>
> ---
>  kernel/printk/printk.c |    2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
> +++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> @@ -2238,7 +2238,7 @@ static u16 printk_sprint(char *text, u16
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> -	trace_console_rcuidle(text, text_len);
> +	trace_console(text, text_len);
>  
>  	return text_len;
>  }
>

On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 11:16:46AM +0200, Petr Mladek
wrote:
> On Wed 2022-06-08 16:27:47, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > The problem, per commit fc98c3c8c9dc ("printk: use rcuidle
console
> > tracepoint"), was printk usage from the cpuidle path where RCU
was
> > already disabled.
> > 
> > Per the patches earlier in this series, this is no longer the case.
> 
> My understanding is that this series reduces a lot the amount
> of code called with RCU disabled. As a result the particular printk()
> call mentioned by commit fc98c3c8c9dc ("printk: use rcuidle console
> tracepoint") is called with RCU enabled now. Hence this particular
> problem is fixed better way now.
> 
> But is this true in general?
> Does this "prevent" calling printk() a safe way in code with
> RCU disabled?
On x86_64, yes. Other architectures, less so.

Specifically, the objtool noinstr validation pass will warn at build
time (DEBUG_ENTRY=y) if any noinstr/cpuidle code does a call to
non-vetted code like printk().

At the same time; there's a few hacks that allow WARN to work, but
mostly if you hit WARN in entry/noinstr you get to keep the pieces in
any case.

On other architecture we'll need to rely on runtime coverage with
PROVE_RCU. That is, if a splat like in the above mentioned commit
happens again, we'll need to fix it by adjusting the callchain, not by
mucking about with RCU state.
> I am not sure if anyone cares. printk() is the best effort
> functionality because of the consoles code anyway. Also I wonder
> if anyone uses this trace_console().
This is the tracepoint used to spool all of printk into ftrace, I
suspect there's users, but I haven't used it myself.
> Therefore if this patch allows to remove some tricky tracing
> code then it might be worth it. But if trace_console_rcuidle()
> variant is still going to be available then I would keep using it.
My ultimate goal is to delete trace_.*_rcuidle() and RCU_NONIDLE()
entirely. We're close, but not quite there yet.