linux-kernel - Re: ftrace performance impact with different configuration

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]

Date:	Sat, 31 Dec 2011 00:31:55 +0100
From:	Philippe Rétornaz <philippe.retornaz@...l.ch>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, Rabin Vincent <rabin@....in>,
	leiwen@...vell.com, Lei Wen <adrian.wenl@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ftrace performance impact with different configuration

Le vendredi 30 décembre 2011 17:25:41 Steven Rostedt a écrit :
> On Fri, 2011-12-30 at 14:07 +0100, Philippe Rétornaz wrote:
> > Sorry about being a bit naive, but why it is not possible to do it in
> > two
> > steps ?
> > call stop_machine to put the jmp which skip the call to mcount
> > Then wait until all tasks hits schedule() (synchronize_sched() ?)
> (...)
> There's no way to safely modify two instructions that depend on each
> other in a preemptible kernel, with the exception of waiting for all
> CPUs to hit idle (which may never happen on a busy system). And even
> that may be racy.
> 

Thanks for the detailed explanation, I got it now. I guess the only way would 
be to use the freezer api like freeze_processes() is doing. Looks like it does 
not worth the pain.

Thanks ! 

Philippe

--
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/