lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 15:28:51 +0800 From: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...fujitsu.com> To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca> CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, fweisbec@...il.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, zhaolei@...fujitsu.com, laijs@...fujitsu.com, Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] ftrace: add a tracepoint for __raise_softirq_irqoff() Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > * Xiao Guangrong (xiaoguangrong@...fujitsu.com) wrote: >> From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca> >> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_TRACEPOINTS >> +extern void __raise_softirq_irqoff(unsigned int nr); >> +#else >> #define __raise_softirq_irqoff(nr) do { or_softirq_pending(1UL << (nr)); } while (0) > > Can you put the > trace_irq_softirq_raise(nr); > > directly in the define rather than adding this weird CONFIG_TRACEPOINTS? > (and change the define for a static inline), something like : > > static inline void __raise_softirq_irqoff(unsigned int nr) > { > trace_irq_softirq_raise(nr); > or_softirq_pending(1UL << (nr); > } > > This would ensure we don't add a function call on the > __raise_softirq_irqoff() fast-path. > We did this in v2, and we think it is better for same reason. But ... > Beware of circular include dependencies though. The tracepoints are > meant not to have this kind of problems (I try to keep the dependencies > very minimalistic), but I wonder if Steven's TRACE_EVENT is now ok on > this aspect. > We encount this type of problem in v2. So we move to this version(v3). > If TRACE_EVENT happens to pose problems with circular header > dependencies, then try moving to the DECLARE_TRACE/DEFINE_TRACE scheme > which has been more thoroughly tested as a first step. > IMHO, TRACE_EVENT framework is better for its more generic as ingo said, and it also provide ftrace support which means user can view tracepoint information from /debug/tracing/events. Although this TRACE_EVENT happens to expose problems with circular header dependencies, we should not refuse using TRACE_EVENT, instead we should try to fix it for the whole TRACE_EVENT facility later. Thanks > Mathieu > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists