[PATCH] tracing: Avoid adding duplicated tracer options when update_tracer_options is running in parallel

[Mark-PK Tsai]

> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 22:21:29 +0800
> Mark-PK Tsai <mark-pk.tsai at mediatek.com> wrote:
> 
> > > On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 11:24:42 +0800
> > > Mark-PK Tsai <mark-pk.tsai at 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 at intel.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Mark-PK Tsai <mark-pk.tsai at 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