[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120330183104.GA12927@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 20:31:04 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: syscall_regfunc() && TIF_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT
Hello.
I've looked at syscall_regfunc/unregfunc by accident, and I am
a bit confused...
void syscall_regfunc(void)
{
unsigned long flags;
struct task_struct *g, *t;
if (!sys_tracepoint_refcount) {
read_lock_irqsave(&tasklist_lock, flags);
Why _irqsave? write_lock(tasklist) needs to disable irqs, but read_
doesn't. Any subtle reason I missed?
do_each_thread(g, t) {
/* Skip kernel threads. */
if (t->mm)
We should check PF_KTHREAD, not ->mm.
set_tsk_thread_flag(t, TIF_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT);
But the main question is, can't we race with clone() and miss the
new child? The new task is not "visible" to do_each_thread() until
copy_process()->list_add_tail_rcu(thread_group/init_task.tasks).
Don't we need something like the patch below?
Oleg.
--- x/kernel/fork.c
+++ x/kernel/fork.c
@@ -1446,7 +1446,12 @@ static struct task_struct *copy_process(
total_forks++;
spin_unlock(¤t->sighand->siglock);
+#ifdef CONFIG_TRACEPOINTS
+ if (unlikely(test_thread_flag(TIF_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT)))
+ set_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT);
+#endif
write_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
+
proc_fork_connector(p);
cgroup_post_fork(p);
if (clone_flags & CLONE_THREAD)
--
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