Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.13 for 2.6.17
From: Frank Ch. Eigler
Date: Tue Sep 26 2006 - 15:51:52 EST
Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > Yep, that looks reasonable. Though you could just directly test a
> > per-marker enable flag, rather than using "condition"...
> I am not sure I understand your suggestion correctly.. do you mean having
> a per-marker flag that would be loaded and tested at every marker site ?
I gather that one reason for working so hard with the inline assembly
is a race condition problem with the plain STAP_MARK style of marker
if (pointer) (*pointer)(args ...);
Granted, but this problem could almost certainly be dealt with simpler
than that. How about a compxchg or other atomic-fetch of the static
pointer with a local variable? That should solve the worry of an
If we then become concerned with a valid pointer become obsolete (the
probe handler function wanting to unload), we might be able to use
some RCU-type deferral mechanism and/or preempt controls to ensure
that this does not happen.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/