linux-kernel - Re: [Question] Hooks for scheduler tracing (CFS)

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070726075353.GA19885@elte.hu>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jul 2007 09:53:53 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Ankita Garg <ankita@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>, linux@...mer.net,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	RT-Users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
	mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca
Subject: Re: [Question] Hooks for scheduler tracing (CFS)


* Ankita Garg <ankita@...ibm.com> wrote:

> > I'd suggest to not put a probe into a preempt-off section - put it 
> > to the beginning and to the end of schedule() to capture 
> > context-switches. _stp_print_flush() is in the systemtap-generated 
> > module, right? Maybe the problem is resolved by changing that 
> > spinlock to use raw_spinlock_t / DEFINE_RAW_SPIN_LOCK.
> 
> Yes, _stp_print_flush is in the systemtap-generated kprobe module. 
> Placing the probe at the beginning of schedule() also has the same 
> effect. Will try by changing the spinlock to raw_spinlock_t...

could you send us that module source ST generates? Perhaps there are 
preempt_disable() (or local_irq_disable()) calls in it too.

	Ingo
-
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/