Re: Re: [PATCH] tracing/uprobes: Support ftrace_event_file basemultibuffer

[Masami Hiramatsu]

(2013/06/17 21:33), Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 11:54 +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> 
>>> It makes a lot of sense to me, at least assuming no issues with the
>>> interrupts being disabled, but the checks not spotting this.  Here
>>> is the check:
>>>
>>> 	preempt_count() != 0 || irqs_disabled()
>>>
>>> (With additional elaboration for if lockdep is enabled.)
>>
>> OK, I see. So I'll convert all the rcu_dereference_raw() to
>> rcu_dereference_sched() except kprobe handler, because in the
>> kprobe handler above check always be true. :)
> 
> I would convert them all to rcu_dereference_sched(), the above check is
> only when CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC is set. It also annotates what is
> protecting this variable. Please do not avoid a check because "it's
> always true here". You also get people copying that code (like for
> uprobes) and that will skip the check too.
> 
> The only reason ftrace function tracer uses the raw (and now
> raw_notrace) version is because it is extremely invasive, and these
> checks done at *every* function call can actually live lock the system.
> But other places in tracing use the appropriate rcu_dereference_*()
> functions. If they do not, then they need to be fixed too.

Oh, I see.
Anyway, it will be completely replaced by the Oleg's patch.
Or should I fix that before his work?

Thank you,

-- 
Masami HIRAMATSU
IT Management Research Dept. Linux Technology Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@xxxxxxxxxxx


--
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/