commit 80a9b64e2c upstream.
It has come to my attention that this_cpu_read/write are horrible on
architectures other than x86. Worse yet, they actually disable
preemption or interrupts! This caused some unexpected tracing results
on ARM.
101.356868: preempt_count_add <-ring_buffer_lock_reserve
101.356870: preempt_count_sub <-ring_buffer_lock_reserve
The ring_buffer_lock_reserve has recursion protection that requires
accessing a per cpu variable. But since preempt_disable() is traced, it
too got traced while accessing the variable that is suppose to prevent
recursion like this.
The generic version of this_cpu_read() and write() are:
#define this_cpu_generic_read(pcp) \
({ typeof(pcp) ret__; \
preempt_disable(); \
ret__ = *this_cpu_ptr(&(pcp)); \
preempt_enable(); \
ret__; \
})
#define this_cpu_generic_to_op(pcp, val, op) \
do { \
unsigned long flags; \
raw_local_irq_save(flags); \
*__this_cpu_ptr(&(pcp)) op val; \
raw_local_irq_restore(flags); \
} while (0)
Which is unacceptable for locations that know they are within preempt
disabled or interrupt disabled locations.
Paul McKenney stated that __this_cpu_() versions produce much better code on
other architectures than this_cpu_() does, if we know that the call is done in
a preempt disabled location.
I also changed the recursive_unlock() to use two local variables instead
of accessing the per_cpu variable twice.
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20150317114411.GE3589@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20150317104038.312e73d1@gandalf.local.home
Acked-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Reported-by: Uwe Kleine-Koenig <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Tested-by: Uwe Kleine-Koenig <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@canonical.com>
14e4cb886b