lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jun]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] enable/disable profiling via proc/sysctl
Levent Serinol <lserinol@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This patch enables controlling kernel profiling through proc/sysctl inferface.
>
> With this patch profiling will be available without rebooting the
> machine (especially for
> production servers) with some drawbacks of vmalloc(tlb). So, bootime
> algorithm part is left unchanged for anyone who wishes to use
> profiling as usual without tlb drawback by rebooting the machine.


> --- include/linux/sysctl.h.org 2005-06-13 16:05:17.000000000 +0300
> +++ include/linux/sysctl.h 2005-06-25 15:05:06.000000000 +0300

Patches should be in `patch -p1' form, please. See
http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/stuff/tpp.txt

> +static int prof_on = 0;
> +static int prof_booton = 0;

There's no need to explicitly initialise these.

> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> +static int remove_hash_tables(void)
> +{
> + int cpu;
> +
> + smp_mb();
> + on_each_cpu(profile_nop, NULL, 0, 1);

Why?

> + for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> + struct page *page;
> +
> + if (per_cpu(cpu_profile_hits, cpu)[0]) {
> + page = virt_to_page(per_cpu(cpu_profile_hits, cpu)[0]);
> + per_cpu(cpu_profile_hits, cpu)[0] = NULL;
> + __free_page(page);
> + }
> + if (per_cpu(cpu_profile_hits, cpu)[1]) {
> + page = virt_to_page(per_cpu(cpu_profile_hits, cpu)[1]);
> + per_cpu(cpu_profile_hits, cpu)[1] = NULL;
> + __free_page(page);
> + }
> + }

Can this race against itself? If two cpus run the sysctl at the same time?
We seem to have lock_kernel() coverage. It's be nice to do something
firmer.

> +int profile_sysctl_handler(ctl_table *table, int write,
> + struct file *file, void __user *buffer, size_t *length, loff_t *ppos)
> +{
> + int err;
> + struct proc_dir_entry *entry;
> +
> + if (prof_booton && write) return 0;
> + err=proc_dointvec(table, write, file, buffer, length, ppos);
> + if ((err >= 0) && write) {
> + prof_shift = profile_params[1];
> + switch(profile_params[0])
> + {
> + case 0:
> + if (prof_on) {

Coding style is all over the place here, as well as in most of the rest of
the patch.


if (prof_booton && write)
return 0;
err = proc_dointvec(table, write, file, buffer, length, ppos);
if (err >= 0 && write) {
prof_shift = profile_params[1];
switch (profile_params[0])
{
case 0:
if (prof_on) {

Every line was changed there...

Also, doing multiple returns per function is unpopular, although the
very-early

if (foo)
return <something>;

right at the top of the function is OK. You can use

if (err < 0 || !write)
goto out;

to save a tab stop.

> + }
> + break;

}
break;

> + case SCHED_PROFILING || CPU_PROFILING:

eh? I'm surprised the compiler swallowed that. I guess it's the same as
`case 1:'. Looks like a bug though.

> + if (prof_on) return -1;
> + prof_len = (_etext - _stext) >> prof_shift;
> + prof_buffer = vmalloc(prof_len*sizeof(atomic_t));
> + if (!prof_buffer) return(-ENOMEM);
> + if (create_hash_tables()) {
> + vfree(prof_buffer);
> + return -1;
> + }
> + prof_on = profile_params[0];
> + if (!(entry = create_proc_entry("profile", S_IWUSR | S_IRUGO, NULL))) {
> + remove_hash_tables();
> + vfree(prof_buffer);
> + return 0;
> + }
> + entry->proc_fops = &proc_profile_operations;
> + entry->size = (1+prof_len) * sizeof(atomic_t);
> +#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
> + register_cpu_notifier(&profile_cpu_notifier);
> +#endif
> + profile_discard_flip_buffers();
> + memset(prof_buffer, 0, prof_len * sizeof(atomic_t));
> + switch(prof_on)
> + {
> + case SCHED_PROFILING:printk(KERN_INFO
> + "kernel schedule profiling enabled (shift: %ld)\n",
> + prof_shift);
> + break;
> + case CPU_PROFILING:printk(KERN_INFO
> + "kernel profiling enabled (shift: %ld)\n",
> + prof_shift);
> + break;
> + }
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> + return 0;
> +}

Documentation/CodingStyle is your friend ;)

> --- kernel/sysctl.c.org 2005-06-13 16:05:23.000000000 +0300
> +++ kernel/sysctl.c 2005-06-26 02:06:23.000000000 +0300
> ...
> +extern int profile_params[];

Try to place this declaration in a header.

What locking protects prof_boot_on()? lock_kernel() won't be sufficient
because we're doing sleeping allocations in here.

I suspect it would be best to whap a semaphore around the whole thing.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-06-27 09:13    [W:0.864 / U:0.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site