Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:34:08 -0500 | From | Masami Hiramatsu <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH -tip v5 03/10] kprobes: Introduce kprobes jump optimization |
| |
Hi Frederic,
Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 06:21:41PM -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: >> +config OPTPROBES >> + bool "Kprobes jump optimization support (EXPERIMENTAL)" >> + default y >> + depends on KPROBES >> + depends on !PREEMPT > > > Why does it depends on !PREEMPT?
Oh, because it has not supported preemptive kernel yet. (I'd like to tell you why in another mail)
>> @@ -301,6 +302,31 @@ void __kprobes free_insn_slot(kprobe_opcode_t * slot, int dirty) >> __free_insn_slot(&kprobe_insn_slots, slot, dirty); >> mutex_unlock(&kprobe_insn_mutex); >> } >> +#ifdef CONFIG_OPTPROBES >> +/* For optimized_kprobe buffer */ >> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(kprobe_optinsn_mutex); /* Protects kprobe_optinsn_slots */ >> +static struct kprobe_insn_cache kprobe_optinsn_slots = { >> + .pages = LIST_HEAD_INIT(kprobe_optinsn_slots.pages), >> + /* .insn_size is initialized later */ >> + .nr_garbage = 0, >> +}; >> +/* Get a slot for optimized_kprobe buffer */ >> +kprobe_opcode_t __kprobes *get_optinsn_slot(void) >> +{ >> + kprobe_opcode_t *ret = NULL; >> + mutex_lock(&kprobe_optinsn_mutex); >> + ret = __get_insn_slot(&kprobe_optinsn_slots); >> + mutex_unlock(&kprobe_optinsn_mutex); >> + return ret; >> +} > > > > Just a small nano-neat: could you add a line between variable > declarations and the rest? And also just before the return? > It makes the code a bit easier to review.
Sure :-)
>> +static void kprobe_optimizer(struct work_struct *work); >> +static DECLARE_DELAYED_WORK(optimizing_work, kprobe_optimizer); >> +#define OPTIMIZE_DELAY 5 >> + >> +/* Kprobe jump optimizer */ >> +static __kprobes void kprobe_optimizer(struct work_struct *work) >> +{ >> + struct optimized_kprobe *op, *tmp; >> + >> + /* Lock modules while optimizing kprobes */ >> + mutex_lock(&module_mutex); >> + mutex_lock(&kprobe_mutex); >> + if (kprobes_all_disarmed) >> + goto end; >> + >> + /* Wait quiesence period for ensuring all interrupts are done */ >> + synchronize_sched(); > > > > It's not clear to me why you are doing that. > Is this waiting for pending int 3 kprobes handlers > to complete? If so, why, and what does that prevent? > > Also, why is it a delayed work? I'm not sure what we are > waiting for here. [...] > Again, I think this dance with live patching protected > by int 3 only, which patching is in turn a necessary > stage before, is a complicated sequence that could be > simplified by choosing only one patching in stop_machine() > time.
There is a reason why we have to wait here and it's excuse why it hasn't supported preemption yet too, I'll tell you in next mail :-)
>> + >> + get_online_cpus(); /* Use online_cpus while optimizing */ > > > > And this comment doesn't tell us much what this brings us. > The changelog tells it stands to avoid a text_mutex deadlock. > I'm not sure why we would deadlock without it.
As Mathieu and I discussed on LKML (http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/11/21/187) text_mutex will be locked on the way of cpu-hotplug. Since kprobes locks text_mutex too and stop_machine() refers online_cpus, it will cause a dead-lock. So, I decided to use get_online_cpus() to locking hotplug while optimizing/unoptimizng.
Thank you,
-- Masami Hiramatsu
Software Engineer Hitachi Computer Products (America), Inc. Software Solutions Division
e-mail: mhiramat@redhat.com
| |