lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/3] tracing/function-return-tracer: add the overrun field
    2008/11/21 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>:
    >
    > * Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >> When the tracer will be launched, I will hold the tasklist_lock to
    >> allocate/insert the dynamic arrays. So in this atomic context, I
    >> will not be able to call kmalloc with GFP_KERNEL. And I fear that
    >> using GFP_ATOMIC for possible hundreds of tasks would be clearly
    >> unacceptable.
    >>
    >> What do you think of this way:
    >>
    >> _tracer activates
    >> _a function enters the tracer entry-hooker. If the array is allocated
    >> for the current task, that's well. If not I launch a kernel thread
    >> that will later allocate an array for the current task (I will pass
    >> the pid as a parameter). So the current task will be soon be traced.
    >> _ when a process forks, I can allocate a dynamic array for the new
    >> task without problem (I hope).
    >>
    >> So some tasks will not be traced at the early beggining of tracing
    >> but they will soon all be traced.... There is perhaps a problem with
    >> tasks that are sleeping for long times... There will be some losses
    >> once they will be awaken...
    >
    > i'd suggest a different approach that is simpler:
    >
    > - step0: set flag that "all newly created tasks need the array
    > allocated from now on".
    >
    > - step1: allocate N arrays outside tasklist_lock
    >
    > - step2: take tasklist_lock, loop over all tasks that exist and pass
    > in the N arrays to all tasks that still need it.
    >
    > If tasks were 'refilled', drop tasklist_lock and go back to step 1.
    >
    > - step3: free N (superfluously allocated) arrays
    >
    > Make N something like 32 to not get into a bad quadratic nr_tasks
    > double loop in practice. (Possibly allocate arrays[32] dynamically as
    > well at step0 and not have it on the kernel stack - so 32 can be
    > changed to 128 or so.)
    >
    > Ingo
    >

    Ok. I thought about this method but wondered about the fact that
    kmalloc can schedule and then I could run in an infinite loop (or a
    too long one).
    I will try this. Thanks.
    --
    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: 2008-11-21 21:09    [W:0.034 / U:0.220 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site