Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
This idea has been considered a few years ago at OLS in the tracing BOFDoes that matter? The new function is semantically identical to the old one, and the old code will remain in place. If there's still users in the old function it may take a while for them to get flushed out (and won't be traced in the meantime), but you have to expect some missed events if you're shoving any kind of dynamic marker into the code. The main problem is if there's something still depending on the first 5 bytes of the function (most likely if there's a loop head somewhere near the top of the function).
if I remember well. The results were this : First, there is no way to
guarantee that no code path, nor any return address from any function,
interrupt, sleeping thread, will return to the "old" version of the
function. Nor is it possible to determine when a quiescent state is
reached. Therefore, we couldn't see how we can do the teardown.
I think we have to ensure no threads sleeping or being interrupted on
the function when removing new function. How would you check it?