lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jan]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 03/10] ftrace: Drop the ftrace_profile_enabled checks in tracing hot path
Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 07:34:51AM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> * Steven Rostedt (rostedt@goodmis.org) wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 23:09 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>>>> * Steven Rostedt (rostedt@goodmis.org) wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Hmm, interesting. Maybe something like that might work. But what if
>>>>> CONFIG_PREEMPT is enabled but CONFIG_FREEZER is not?
>>>>
>>>> Then you may want to make the function tracer depend on CONFIG_FREEZER,
>>>> but maybe Masami has other ideas ?
>>>
>>> egad no! This is just to help add guarantees to those that use the
>>> function tracer that when the tracing is disabled, it is guaranteed that
>>> no more tracing will be called by the function tracer. Currently,
>>> nothing relies on this. But we may add cases that might need this.
>>
>> Yep, identifying tracer quiescent state can become handy.
>>
>>>
>>> In fact, only those that need this requirement would need to do this
>>> trick. Anyway, we could make those depend on CONFIG_FREEZER, but that
>>> just seems to be a strange dependency.
>>
>> This makes me wonder (question for Masami)...
>>
>> static int __kprobes check_safety(void)
>> {
>> int ret = 0;
>> #if defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT) && defined(CONFIG_FREEZER)
>> ret = freeze_processes();
>> if (ret == 0) {
>> struct task_struct *p, *q;
>> do_each_thread(p, q) {
>> if (p != current && p->state == TASK_RUNNING &&
>> p->pid != 0) {
>> printk("Check failed: %s is running\n",p->comm);
>> ret = -1;
>> goto loop_end;
>> }
>> } while_each_thread(p, q);
>
>
>
> How does that deal with kernel threads that don't freeze?

Hmm, right. It can't handle non-freezable kernel threads.

> Also freezing every processes seems a bit of a heavy thing for that.
> Looks like a synchronize_tasks() would be really useful.

Sure :-)
Maybe, I'd better remove booster support on preemptive kernel until then.

Thank you,

--
Masami Hiramatsu

Software Engineer
Hitachi Computer Products (America), Inc.
Software Solutions Division

e-mail: mhiramat@redhat.com



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-01-25 23:17    [W:0.088 / U:1.372 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site