[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1256861174.26028.3261.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:06:14 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3][RFC] tracing/kprobes: prevent jprobes from
crashing function graph tracer
On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 19:22 -0400, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >> I think we can skip those user handlers, because those are irregular
> >> functions and user can control (enable/disable) it.
> >
> > True, but it may be nice to still trace them.
>
> Hm, in that case, I think we can change jprobe_return() to call
> f-g-tracer's return handler if needed as below;
> ---
> static inline jprobe_return(void)
> {
> implicit_function_return(); /* This executes f-g-tracer prologue */
> __jprobe_return(); /* This should be notraced */
> }
Hmm, That looks like it can be quite a hack. We don't know at that
moment if the handler has been traced or not. We can't always do the
function graph logic.
-- Steve
--
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