[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110426141903.GC1896@jolsa.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:19:03 +0200
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kprobes,x86: disable irq durinr optimized callback
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 09:46:25AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 03:01:31PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > hi,
> >
> > attached patch is disabling irqs during optimized callback,
> > so we dont miss any in-irq kprobes as missed.
> >
> > Also I think there's small window where current_kprobe variable
> > could be touched in non-safe way, but I was not able to hit
> > any issue.
> >
> > I'm not sure wether this is a bug or if it was intentional to have
> > irqs enabled during the pre_handler callback.
>
> That's not very convincing. Did you see if we actually did miss events.
> If that's the case then it is a bug. The conversion to optimizing should
> not cause events to be missed.
yep, running following:
# cd /debug/tracing/
# echo "p mutex_unlock" >> kprobe_events
# echo "p _raw_spin_lock" >> kprobe_events
# echo "p smp_apic_timer_interrupt" >> ./kprobe_events
# echo 1 > events/enable
makes the optimized kprobes to be missed. They are not missed in
same testcase for non-optimized kprobes. I should have mentioned
that, sry ;)
>
>
> >
> > wbr,
> > jirka
> >
> > ---
> > Disabling irqs during optimized callback, so we dont miss
> > any in-irq kprobes as missed.
> >
> > Interrupts are also disabled during non-optimized kprobes callbacks.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c | 3 +++
> > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c b/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c
> > index c969fd9..917cb31 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c
> > @@ -1183,11 +1183,13 @@ static void __kprobes optimized_callback(struct optimized_kprobe *op,
> > struct pt_regs *regs)
> > {
> > struct kprobe_ctlblk *kcb = get_kprobe_ctlblk();
> > + unsigned long flags;
> >
> > /* This is possible if op is under delayed unoptimizing */
> > if (kprobe_disabled(&op->kp))
> > return;
> >
> > + local_irq_save(flags);
> > preempt_disable();
>
> No reason to disable preemption if you disabled interrupts.
ops, missed that.. attaching new patch
thanks,
jirka
---
Disabling irqs during optimized callback, so we dont miss
any in-irq kprobes as missed.
running following:
# cd /debug/tracing/
# echo "p mutex_unlock" >> kprobe_events
# echo "p _raw_spin_lock" >> kprobe_events
# echo "p smp_apic_timer_interrupt" >> ./kprobe_events
# echo 1 > events/enable
makes the optimized kprobes to be missed. None is missed
if the kprobe optimatization is disabled.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
---
arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c | 5 +++--
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c b/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c
index c969fd9..f1a6244 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c
@@ -1183,12 +1183,13 @@ static void __kprobes optimized_callback(struct optimized_kprobe *op,
struct pt_regs *regs)
{
struct kprobe_ctlblk *kcb = get_kprobe_ctlblk();
+ unsigned long flags;
/* This is possible if op is under delayed unoptimizing */
if (kprobe_disabled(&op->kp))
return;
- preempt_disable();
+ local_irq_save(flags);
if (kprobe_running()) {
kprobes_inc_nmissed_count(&op->kp);
} else {
@@ -1207,7 +1208,7 @@ static void __kprobes optimized_callback(struct optimized_kprobe *op,
opt_pre_handler(&op->kp, regs);
__this_cpu_write(current_kprobe, NULL);
}
- preempt_enable_no_resched();
+ local_irq_restore(flags);
}
static int __kprobes copy_optimized_instructions(u8 *dest, u8 *src)
--
1.7.1
--
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