lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: syscall_regfunc() && TIF_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT
From
Date
On Sat, 2012-03-31 at 22:45 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/30, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 22:15 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > > But I don't really understand why do you think that "clear" is more
> > > important.
> >
> > They are both important. But as I tend to consider performance when
> > tracing is off as critical, I'm more concerned about that. But both must
> > be fixed, because not reporting traces can confuse a developer.
>
> Ah, got it, thanks.
>
> I was going to send the simple patch we discussed, but suddenly I
> realized that I have another question.
>
> Why do we want to filter out the kernel threads in syscall_regfunc?
>
> >From cc3b13c1 "tracing: Don't trace kernel thread syscalls"
>
> then it has no effect to trace the kernel thread calls
> to syscalls in that path.
> Setting the TIF_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT flag is then useless for these.
>
> OK, but then it doesn't hurt? Or is there another reason why
> TIF_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT is not desirable on kthread?

Right, it doesn't hurt. I was about to say that in a previous email.

>
> The problem is ____call_usermodehelper() which execs the user-space
> task. This clears PF_KTHREAD (sets ->mm), but obviously if
> sys_tracepoint_refcount != 0 this is too late.
>
> So what do you think we should do,
>
> - keep this check
>
> - remove it
>
> - remove it in a separate patch

I say this one (remove it in a separate patch). That way if something
breaks we know exactly what did it ;-)

>
> - add the "sync with sys_tracepoint_refcount" hook
> before kernel_execve()
>
> ?

-- Steve




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-03-31 23:41    [W:0.056 / U:48.304 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site