lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jul]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: timer: lockup in run_timer_softirq()
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:59:32PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 12:55 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Other than that, a function tracer environment that is safer to use might be
> > > useful for other people as well.
> >
> > Not sure how to make the environment safe, as the main purpose of the
> > function trace is to debug those hard to debug locations, like NMIs,
> > RCU, dynamic ticks, etc. To ensure a "safe" environment, it would
> > cripple the tracer.
> >
> > Hmm, what would you state as a safe environment? How can we detect if
> > the environment is safe to trace or not?
>
> Maybe I misunderstood you. You mean to have this environment be
> something for not just perf, and have the macro be:
>
> NONSAFE_TRACE(__local_bh_enable);
>
> ?
>
> Then, any ftrace user could set a flag in the registering of its ops to
> 'safe_only_functions'. And it will ignore all of these locations.
> There's really not many of them, so it may not be too hard to weed out.

Yah, like that. But that doesn't invalidate your question as to what 'safe'
would encompass. I think RCU/lockdep would be the big thing for perf, not
sure it should be wider than that.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-07-11 19:41    [W:0.831 / U:0.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site