lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] ftrace: make dynamic ftrace more robust

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:

>
> * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
>
> > +enum {
> > + FTRACE_CODE_MODIFIED,
>
> i'd suggest to name it FTRACE_CODE_MODIFIED_OK here, to make it stand
> out from the failure codes.
>
> > + FTRACE_CODE_FAILED_READ,
> > + FTRACE_CODE_FAILED_CMP,
> > + FTRACE_CODE_FAILED_WRITE,
>
> but maybe we should just use the standard kernel return codes. 0 for
> success, -EINVAL for the rest. Is there any real value to know exactly
> why it failed? We just know the modification was fishy (this is an
> exception situation), and want to stop ftrace ASAP and then print a
> warning so a kernel developer can debug it.

Yes it is important to know the reason of failure, since it helps with
diagnosing the issue.

>
> Complicating error handling by introducing similar-looking return code
> names just makes it easier to mess up accidentally, hence it _reduces_
> robustness.

I had in mind for 2.6.29 that I would let an arch add another non-error
code that says, "FAIL NICELY". This is a way, for example, to let an
arch not be able to modify the code because it does not have the ability
yet. Like with the trampoline example. I wanted to let the arch say,
I do not make this kind of change, but it is not a bug (I didn't modify
anything) simply ignore. And have ftrace simply remove the record and go
on.

>
> > --- linux-compile.git.orig/include/linux/init.h 2008-10-20 19:39:54.000000000 -0400
> > +++ linux-compile.git/include/linux/init.h 2008-10-20 19:40:06.000000000 -0400
> > @@ -75,15 +75,15 @@
> >
> >
> > #ifdef MODULE
> > -#define __exitused
> > +#define __exitused notrace
> > #else
> > -#define __exitused __used
> > +#define __exitused __used notrace
> > #endif
> >
> > #define __exit __section(.exit.text) __exitused __cold
> >
> > /* Used for HOTPLUG */
> > -#define __devinit __section(.devinit.text) __cold
> > +#define __devinit __section(.devinit.text) __cold notrace
> > #define __devinitdata __section(.devinit.data)
> > #define __devinitconst __section(.devinit.rodata)
> > #define __devexit __section(.devexit.text) __exitused __cold
> > @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@
> > #define __devexitconst __section(.devexit.rodata)
> >
> > /* Used for HOTPLUG_CPU */
> > -#define __cpuinit __section(.cpuinit.text) __cold
> > +#define __cpuinit __section(.cpuinit.text) __cold notrace
> > #define __cpuinitdata __section(.cpuinit.data)
> > #define __cpuinitconst __section(.cpuinit.rodata)
> > #define __cpuexit __section(.cpuexit.text) __exitused __cold
> > @@ -99,7 +99,7 @@
> > #define __cpuexitconst __section(.cpuexit.rodata)
> >
> > /* Used for MEMORY_HOTPLUG */
> > -#define __meminit __section(.meminit.text) __cold
> > +#define __meminit __section(.meminit.text) __cold notrace
> > #define __meminitdata __section(.meminit.data)
> > #define __meminitconst __section(.meminit.rodata)
> > #define __memexit __section(.memexit.text) __exitused __cold
>
> there's no justification given for this in the changelog and the change
> looks fishy.

Sorry, I missed writing this. I had it in other patches, but forgot to
add the change log here. These are areas, just like the __init section
that I have no way ok finding out in an arch independent way, what to
remove from the ftrace records. So by not adding these notraces, we are
guaranteed to hit the warnings above!

>
> > static void ftrace_free_rec(struct dyn_ftrace *rec)
> > {
> > + /*
> > + * No locking, only called from kstop_machine, or
> > + * from module unloading with module locks and interrupts
> > + * disabled to prevent kstop machine from running.
> > + */
> > +
> > + WARN_ON(rec->flags & FTRACE_FL_FREE);
>
> this should _NOT_ be just a WARN_ON(). It should immediately stop ftrace
> entirely, then print _one_ warning. Then it should never ever run up to
> the next reboot.
>
> this is a basic principle for instrumentation. If we detect a bug we
> disable ourselves immediately and print a _single_ warning.
>
> Do _not_ print possibly thousands of warnings and continue as if nothing
> happened ...

Fine. I'll replace all WARN_ONs with FTRACE_WARN_ONS.

>
> > + /* kprobes was not the fault */
> > + ftrace_kill_atomic();
>
> while at it, ftrace_kill_atomic() is a misnomer.
>
> Please use something more understandable and less ambigious, like
> "ftrace_turn_off()". Both 'kill' and 'atomic' are heavily laden phrases
> used for many other things in the kernel.
>
> And any such facility must work from any context, because we might call
> it from crash paths, etc. So dont name it _atomic() - it must obviously
> be atomic.

The reason for the naming was that ftrace_kill was used when I knew
something was wrong but not seriously wrong. But enough to disable ftrace
with the kstop_machine. But fine, I'll fix it.

-- Steve



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-10-22 13:09    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site