kernel/trace/trace.c | 7 +++++++ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
When update_tracer_options is running in parallel,
tr->tops might be updated before the trace_types list traversal.
Let update_tracer_options traverse the trace_types list safely in
kernel init time and avoid the tr->tops update before it finish.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220322133339.GA32582@xsang-OptiPlex-9020/
Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Mark-PK Tsai <mark-pk.tsai@mediatek.com>
---
kernel/trace/trace.c | 7 +++++++
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace.c b/kernel/trace/trace.c
index adb37e437a05..2974ae056068 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/trace.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/trace.c
@@ -6317,12 +6317,18 @@ static void tracing_set_nop(struct trace_array *tr)
tr->current_trace = &nop_trace;
}
+static bool tracer_options_updated;
+
static void add_tracer_options(struct trace_array *tr, struct tracer *t)
{
/* Only enable if the directory has been created already. */
if (!tr->dir)
return;
+ /* Only create trace option files after update_tracer_options finish */
+ if (!tracer_options_updated)
+ return;
+
create_trace_option_files(tr, t);
}
@@ -9133,6 +9139,7 @@ static void update_tracer_options(struct trace_array *tr)
{
mutex_lock(&trace_types_lock);
__update_tracer_options(tr);
+ tracer_options_updated = true;
mutex_unlock(&trace_types_lock);
}
--
2.18.0
On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 11:24:42 +0800
Mark-PK Tsai <mark-pk.tsai@mediatek.com> wrote:
> When update_tracer_options is running in parallel,
> tr->tops might be updated before the trace_types list traversal.
> Let update_tracer_options traverse the trace_types list safely in
> kernel init time and avoid the tr->tops update before it finish.
??? Have you seen a bug here? I'm totally confused by this.
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220322133339.GA32582@xsang-OptiPlex-9020/
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Mark-PK Tsai <mark-pk.tsai@mediatek.com>
> ---
> kernel/trace/trace.c | 7 +++++++
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace.c b/kernel/trace/trace.c
> index adb37e437a05..2974ae056068 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/trace.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/trace.c
> @@ -6317,12 +6317,18 @@ static void tracing_set_nop(struct trace_array *tr)
> tr->current_trace = &nop_trace;
> }
>
> +static bool tracer_options_updated;
> +
> static void add_tracer_options(struct trace_array *tr, struct tracer *t)
> {
> /* Only enable if the directory has been created already. */
> if (!tr->dir)
> return;
>
> + /* Only create trace option files after update_tracer_options finish */
> + if (!tracer_options_updated)
> + return;
> +
> create_trace_option_files(tr, t);
> }
>
> @@ -9133,6 +9139,7 @@ static void update_tracer_options(struct trace_array *tr)
> {
> mutex_lock(&trace_types_lock);
How is update_trace_options run in parallel?
There's a mutex that protects it.
-- Steve
> __update_tracer_options(tr);
> + tracer_options_updated = true;
> mutex_unlock(&trace_types_lock);
> }
>
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 11:24:42 +0800
> Mark-PK Tsai <mark-pk.tsai@mediatek.com> wrote:
>
> > When update_tracer_options is running in parallel,
> > tr->tops might be updated before the trace_types list traversal.
> > Let update_tracer_options traverse the trace_types list safely in
> > kernel init time and avoid the tr->tops update before it finish.
>
> ??? Have you seen a bug here? I'm totally confused by this.
Sorry to make you confused.
After the below patch, update_tracer_options might be executed later than registering
hwlat_tracer, which is in late_initcall.
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220316151639.9216-1-mark-pk.tsai@mediatek.com/
The init_hwlat_tracer initcall will put hwlat_tracer to tr->tops.
Then when the later arrived __update_tracer_options is trying to
update all the tracer options, create_trace_option_files show the
below warning because hwlat_tracer is already in the list.
[ 6.680068 ][ T7 ] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 7 at kernel/trace/trace.c:8899 create_trace_option_files (kernel/trace/trace.c:8899 (discriminator 1))
full log: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220322133339.GA32582@xsang-OptiPlex-9020/
>
> >
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220322133339.GA32582@xsang-OptiPlex-9020/
> > Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Mark-PK Tsai <mark-pk.tsai@mediatek.com>
> > ---
> > kernel/trace/trace.c | 7 +++++++
> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace.c b/kernel/trace/trace.c
> > index adb37e437a05..2974ae056068 100644
> > --- a/kernel/trace/trace.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace.c
> > @@ -6317,12 +6317,18 @@ static void tracing_set_nop(struct trace_array *tr)
> > tr->current_trace = &nop_trace;
> > }
> >
> > +static bool tracer_options_updated;
> > +
> > static void add_tracer_options(struct trace_array *tr, struct tracer *t)
> > {
> > /* Only enable if the directory has been created already. */
> > if (!tr->dir)
> > return;
> >
> > + /* Only create trace option files after update_tracer_options finish */
> > + if (!tracer_options_updated)
> > + return;
> > +
> > create_trace_option_files(tr, t);
> > }
> >
> > @@ -9133,6 +9139,7 @@ static void update_tracer_options(struct trace_array *tr)
> > {
> > mutex_lock(&trace_types_lock);
>
> How is update_trace_options run in parallel?
>
> There's a mutex that protects it.
>
Oh sorry.
What I trying to tell is that update_trace_options is run in parallel with
the initcall thread after:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220316151639.9216-1-mark-pk.tsai@mediatek.com/
> -- Steve
>
>
> > __update_tracer_options(tr);
> > + tracer_options_updated = true;
> > mutex_unlock(&trace_types_lock);
> > }
> >
On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 22:21:29 +0800
Mark-PK Tsai <mark-pk.tsai@mediatek.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 11:24:42 +0800
> > Mark-PK Tsai <mark-pk.tsai@mediatek.com> wrote:
> >
> > > When update_tracer_options is running in parallel,
> > > tr->tops might be updated before the trace_types list traversal.
> > > Let update_tracer_options traverse the trace_types list safely in
> > > kernel init time and avoid the tr->tops update before it finish.
> >
> > ??? Have you seen a bug here? I'm totally confused by this.
>
> Sorry to make you confused.
>
> After the below patch, update_tracer_options might be executed later than registering
> hwlat_tracer, which is in late_initcall.
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220316151639.9216-1-mark-pk.tsai@mediatek.com/
If you send patches that depend on patches that are not in the tree, you
need to explicitly state that.
>
> The init_hwlat_tracer initcall will put hwlat_tracer to tr->tops.
> Then when the later arrived __update_tracer_options is trying to
> update all the tracer options, create_trace_option_files show the
> below warning because hwlat_tracer is already in the list.
>
> [ 6.680068 ][ T7 ] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 7 at kernel/trace/trace.c:8899 create_trace_option_files (kernel/trace/trace.c:8899 (discriminator 1))
>
> full log: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220322133339.GA32582@xsang-OptiPlex-9020/
So this is all dependent on patches not in the tree?
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220322133339.GA32582@xsang-OptiPlex-9020/
> > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Mark-PK Tsai <mark-pk.tsai@mediatek.com>
> > > ---
> > > kernel/trace/trace.c | 7 +++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace.c b/kernel/trace/trace.c
> > > index adb37e437a05..2974ae056068 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/trace/trace.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace.c
> > > @@ -6317,12 +6317,18 @@ static void tracing_set_nop(struct trace_array *tr)
> > > tr->current_trace = &nop_trace;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static bool tracer_options_updated;
> > > +
> > > static void add_tracer_options(struct trace_array *tr, struct tracer *t)
> > > {
> > > /* Only enable if the directory has been created already. */
> > > if (!tr->dir)
> > > return;
> > >
> > > + /* Only create trace option files after update_tracer_options finish */
> > > + if (!tracer_options_updated)
> > > + return;
> > > +
> > > create_trace_option_files(tr, t);
> > > }
> > >
> > > @@ -9133,6 +9139,7 @@ static void update_tracer_options(struct trace_array *tr)
> > > {
> > > mutex_lock(&trace_types_lock);
> >
> > How is update_trace_options run in parallel?
> >
> > There's a mutex that protects it.
> >
>
> Oh sorry.
> What I trying to tell is that update_trace_options is run in parallel with
> the initcall thread after:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220316151639.9216-1-mark-pk.tsai@mediatek.com/
>
Again, this is not in the tree, so it should be part of that patch series,
which I haven't yet been able to fully review.
-- Steve
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 22:21:29 +0800
> Mark-PK Tsai <mark-pk.tsai@mediatek.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 11:24:42 +0800
> > > Mark-PK Tsai <mark-pk.tsai@mediatek.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > When update_tracer_options is running in parallel,
> > > > tr->tops might be updated before the trace_types list traversal.
> > > > Let update_tracer_options traverse the trace_types list safely in
> > > > kernel init time and avoid the tr->tops update before it finish.
> > >
> > > ??? Have you seen a bug here? I'm totally confused by this.
> >
> > Sorry to make you confused.
> >
> > After the below patch, update_tracer_options might be executed later than registering
> > hwlat_tracer, which is in late_initcall.
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220316151639.9216-1-mark-pk.tsai@mediatek.com/
>
> If you send patches that depend on patches that are not in the tree, you
> need to explicitly state that.
Got it.
>
>
> >
> > The init_hwlat_tracer initcall will put hwlat_tracer to tr->tops.
> > Then when the later arrived __update_tracer_options is trying to
> > update all the tracer options, create_trace_option_files show the
> > below warning because hwlat_tracer is already in the list.
> >
> > [ 6.680068 ][ T7 ] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 7 at kernel/trace/trace.c:8899 create_trace_option_files (kernel/trace/trace.c:8899 (discriminator 1))
> >
> > full log: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220322133339.GA32582@xsang-OptiPlex-9020/
>
> So this is all dependent on patches not in the tree?
Yes...
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220322133339.GA32582@xsang-OptiPlex-9020/
> > > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Mark-PK Tsai <mark-pk.tsai@mediatek.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > kernel/trace/trace.c | 7 +++++++
> > > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace.c b/kernel/trace/trace.c
> > > > index adb37e437a05..2974ae056068 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/trace/trace.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace.c
> > > > @@ -6317,12 +6317,18 @@ static void tracing_set_nop(struct trace_array *tr)
> > > > tr->current_trace = &nop_trace;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > +static bool tracer_options_updated;
> > > > +
> > > > static void add_tracer_options(struct trace_array *tr, struct tracer *t)
> > > > {
> > > > /* Only enable if the directory has been created already. */
> > > > if (!tr->dir)
> > > > return;
> > > >
> > > > + /* Only create trace option files after update_tracer_options finish */
> > > > + if (!tracer_options_updated)
> > > > + return;
> > > > +
> > > > create_trace_option_files(tr, t);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > @@ -9133,6 +9139,7 @@ static void update_tracer_options(struct trace_array *tr)
> > > > {
> > > > mutex_lock(&trace_types_lock);
> > >
> > > How is update_trace_options run in parallel?
> > >
> > > There's a mutex that protects it.
> > >
> >
> > Oh sorry.
> > What I trying to tell is that update_trace_options is run in parallel with
> > the initcall thread after:
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220316151639.9216-1-mark-pk.tsai@mediatek.com/
> >
>
> Again, this is not in the tree, so it should be part of that patch series,
> which I haven't yet been able to fully review.
Got it, I will collect these two patches in patch series v3 and rewrite the bad commit message.
Thanks!
>
> -- Steve
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.