[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090827143902.GA3552@Krystal>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 10:39:02 -0400
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing/profile: Fix profile_disable vs module_unload
* Steven Rostedt (rostedt@...dmis.org) wrote:
>
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009, Li Zefan wrote:
>
> > > Peter is correct that he should not need to worry about modules, he
> > > doesn't build kernels with them ;-)
> > >
> > > Here's another patch that moves the module ref count administration to the
> > > trace events themselves. This should satisfy both you and Peter.
> > >
> >
> > In fact I had this patch in my mind, but I thought Peter insist
> > on fixing it in tracepoint. So I'm fine with this. :)
>
> Tracepoints I consider a more low level API. Using them takes more hand
> work and the user needs to know what they are doing and thus, must take
> into account modules.
>
> This code is automatic, and a much higher level API. The user shoud not
> need to worry about modules, thus the protection belongs here.
>
> If we try to make it so a module can not have register itself, then that
> will just complicate the TRACE_EVENT macros even more. And those are
> complex enough.
>
> >
> > > Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/trace/ftrace.h b/include/trace/ftrace.h
> > > index 1b1f742..3f7c5dc 100644
> > > --- a/include/trace/ftrace.h
> > > +++ b/include/trace/ftrace.h
> > > @@ -390,6 +390,20 @@ static inline int ftrace_get_offsets_##call( \
> > > *
> > > */
> > >
> > > +#ifdef MODULE
> > > +# define event_trace_up_ref() \
> > > + do { \
> > > + if (!try_module_get(THIS_MODULE)) { \
> > > + atomic_dec(&event_call->profile_count); \
> > > + return -1; \
> >
> > Should return -1 or -errno like -ENOENT?
>
> Thanks, I was being lazy and really did not know what to have it return.
> I'll commit it with a -ENOENT.
>
Looks good. Just don't forget to eventually add the "synchronize" calls
between tracepoint unregistration and the removal of their module. There
is a race condition in the way you do it currently.
Thanks,
Mathieu
> -- Steve
>
> >
> > > + } \
> > > + } while (0)
> > > +# define event_trace_down_ref() module_put(THIS_MODULE)
> > > +#else
> > > +# define event_trace_up_ref() do { } while (0)
> > > +# define event_trace_down_ref() do { } while (0)
> > > +#endif
> > > +
> > > #undef TRACE_EVENT
> > > #define TRACE_EVENT(call, proto, args, tstruct, assign, print) \
> > > \
> > > @@ -399,16 +413,20 @@ static int ftrace_profile_enable_##call(struct ftrace_event_call *event_call) \
> > > { \
> > > int ret = 0; \
> > > \
> > > - if (!atomic_inc_return(&event_call->profile_count)) \
> > > + if (!atomic_inc_return(&event_call->profile_count)) { \
> > > + event_trace_up_ref(); \
> > > ret = register_trace_##call(ftrace_profile_##call); \
> > > + } \
> > > \
> > > return ret; \
> > > } \
> > > \
> > > static void ftrace_profile_disable_##call(struct ftrace_event_call *event_call)\
> > > { \
> > > - if (atomic_add_negative(-1, &event_call->profile_count)) \
> > > + if (atomic_add_negative(-1, &event_call->profile_count)) { \
> > > unregister_trace_##call(ftrace_profile_##call); \
> > > + event_trace_down_ref(); \
> > > + } \
> > > }
> > >
> > > #include TRACE_INCLUDE(TRACE_INCLUDE_FILE)
> > >
> > >
> >
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
--
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