On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 09:25:58PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 6:08 PM Eiichi Tsukata <de...@etsukata.com> wrote:
> > diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_preemptirq.c
> > b/kernel/trace/trace_preemptirq.c
> > index 4d8e99fdbbbe..031b51cb94d0 100644
> > --- a/kernel/trace/trace_preemptirq.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_preemptirq.c
> > @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
> > #include <linux/module.h>
> > #include <linux/ftrace.h>
> > #include <linux/kprobes.h>
> > +#include <linux/context_tracking.h>
> > #include "trace.h"
> >
> > #define CREATE_TRACE_POINTS
> > @@ -49,9 +50,14 @@ NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(trace_hardirqs_off);
> >
> > __visible void trace_hardirqs_on_caller(unsigned long caller_addr)
> > {
> > + enum ctx_state prev_state;
> > +
> > if (this_cpu_read(tracing_irq_cpu)) {
> > - if (!in_nmi())
> > + if (!in_nmi()) {
> > + prev_state = exception_enter();
> > trace_irq_enable_rcuidle(CALLER_ADDR0, caller_addr);
> > + exception_exit(prev_state);
> > + }
> > tracer_hardirqs_on(CALLER_ADDR0, caller_addr);
> > this_cpu_write(tracing_irq_cpu, 0);
> > }
>
> This seems a bit distressing. Now we're going to do a whole bunch of
> context tracking transitions for each kernel entry. Would a better
> fix me to change trace_hardirqs_on_caller to skip the trace event if
> the previous state was already IRQs on and, more importantly, to skip
> tracing IRQs off if IRQs were already off? The x86 code is very
> careful to avoid ever having IRQs on and CONTEXT_USER at the same
> time.
I think they already (try to) do that; see 'tracing_irq_cpu'.
