[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1251197235.7538.1142.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:47:15 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing/profile: Fix profile_disable vs module_unload
On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 12:39 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Do you really wish to burden every tracepoint user with the extra
> > logic needed to deal with modules?
>
> Not necessarily - i'm just outlining why i think that the 'dont
> allow subsystems to utilize tracepoint callbacks' is a restriction
> we should not live with voluntarily.
Well, unless someone has a bright idea that's what it comes down to. And
not having to care about modules when using tracepoint wins hands down
for me.
The issue seems rather simple:
Either we force everybody who uses a tracepoint to care about modules,
be this by having to do try_get_module() themselves or by having to
listen to some notifier and have their callback forcibly dropped on
unload -- both suck IMO, suck very hard indeed.
Or by having modules that use their own tracepoint be stuck, because
once you block unlock when a tracepoint has callbacks, and it installed
a callback on itself, its not going to go away.
And since I don't care about modules at all and really wish they'd never
been invented...
--
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