[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1354894134.17101.44.camel@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 10:28:54 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: "Jon Medhurst (Tixy)" <tixy@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Rabin Vincent <rabin@....in>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: ftrace: Ensure code modifications are synchronised
across all cpus
On Fri, 2012-12-07 at 14:55 +0000, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
>
> > But also realize that function tracing is special :-) We have no cases
> > like this. The instruction being replaced is a call to mcount. In fact,
> > we replace it at boot with a nop. And this method only replaces that nop
> > into a call to function tracer, or replaces the call to function tracer
> > back to a nop. Always at the start of the function, and never involved
> > with conditionals. This limitation that function tracing imposes on what
> > we replace makes things a bit more sane in how we replace it.
>
> Then perhaps the method you suggest will work on ARM :-). However, that
> is not something I personally propose to implement at this time. (I was
> doing my good Samaritan act by trying to fix the crashes which another
> team was getting when trying to use ftrace.)
>
I'm not NACKing your previous patch, I was just suggesting to bring ARM
up to the future :-)
I have no problems with the patch, but I just want to put it out there
that there's better ways. It's part of the remove stomp_machine()
crusade ;-)
-- 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