Messages in this thread |  | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86: add kprobe-booster to X86_64 | | From | Harvey Harrison <> | | Date | Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:21:34 -0800 |
On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 23:43 -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> Harvey Harrison wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 08:50 -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> >> Hi Harvey,
> >>
> >> Thank you for cleaning this up.
> >>
> >> Harvey Harrison wrote:
> >>> Subject: [PATCH] x86: kprobes leftover cleanups
> >>>
> >>> Eliminate __always_inline, all of these static functions are
> >>> only called once. Minor whitespace cleanup. Eliminate one
> >>> supefluous return at end of void function. Reverse sense of
> >>> #ifndef to be #ifdef to show the case only affects X86_32.
> >> Unfortunately, to prevent kprobe recursive call, all functions which
> >> is called from kprobes must be inlined or have __kprobes.
> >> If __always_inline macro still work, I prefer to use it. If not,
> >> it must have a __kprobe attribute like as below.
> >
> > I thought all static functions that were only called once were
> > automatically inlined these days? Otherwise __always_inline and
> > inline are exactly the same in the kernel.
>
> Yes, it will be (not obviously) inlined, currently.
> However, IMHO, it is not fail-safe coding.
>
Fair enough, you seem to have a deeper understanding of the code than
I, I'd suggest __kprobes as a better annotation for this purpose though.
> I think we might better take care of someone who will modify the code
> in the future. If they call those functions from other place,
> it will not be inlined, and may be placed out of .kprobes.text.
> In that case, we can not prevent inserting kprobes in those functions.
>
> Thus, I recommend you to add __kprobes on those functions.
> That indicates which functions will be used by kprobes and gives
> hints how to write functions which will be called from kprobes.
> (And also, it simplifies coding rule.)
Patch forthcoming.
Harvey
|  |