lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [May]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH][RFC] tracing/context-tracking: Add preempt_schedule_context() for tracing
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 11:18:48AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 15:43 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> > > +void __sched notrace preempt_schedule_context(void)
> > > +{
> > > + struct thread_info *ti = current_thread_info();
> > > + enum ctx_state prev_ctx;
> > > +
> > > + if (likely(ti->preempt_count || irqs_disabled()))
> > > + return;
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * Need to disable preemption in case user_exit() is traced
> > > + * and the tracer calls preempt_enable_notrace() causing
> > > + * an infinite recursion.
> > > + */
> > > + preempt_disable_notrace();
> > > + prev_ctx = this_cpu_read(context_tracking.state);
> > > + user_exit();
> >
> > You can reuse exception_enter()
>
> I originally did use that, but then noticed that everything else in
> context_tracking.c used context_tracking.state directly. I have no
> problems doing it this way again.

It's more about the fact that exception_*() APIs already implement
part of what you're doing. And yeah as a bonus it's also better to keep
context_tracking internals in context_tracking.c

>
> >
> > > + preempt_enable_no_resched_notrace();
> > > +
> > > + preempt_schedule();
> > > +
> > > + preempt_disable_notrace();
> > > + if (prev_ctx == IN_USER)
> > > + user_enter();
> >
> > And then exception_exit() here.
> >
> > I guess this replaces your fix with schedule_preempt_user(). I liked
> > it because it seems that:
> >
> > if (need_resched()) {
> > user_exit();
> > local_irq_enable();
> > schedule();
> > local_irq_enable();
> > user_enter();
> > }
> >
> > is a common pattern of arch user resume preemption that we can consolidate.
> >
> > But your new patch probably makes it more widely safe for the function tracer
> > for any function that can be called and traced in IN_USER mode. Not only user preemption.
> > Think about do_notify_resume() for example if it is called after syscall_trace_leave().
> >
> > Independantly, schedule_preempt_user() is still interesting for consolidation.
>
> And I think that patch is still valid from just a clean up point of
> view. It just didn't cover all the cases needed for tracing.

Right.

Thanks.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-05-31 18:41    [W:0.086 / U:2.140 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site