[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130125165934.GE2069@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 16:59:34 +0000
From: Dave Martin <dave.martin@...aro.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
sahara <keun-o.park@...driver.com>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/19] [INCOMPLETE] ARM: make return_address available
for ARM_UNWIND
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:44:14AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> [ I got an error with linux-arm-kernel@...t.infradead.org and had to
> remove from CC ]
Blame Arnd :)
>
> On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 16:26 +0000, Dave Martin wrote:
>
> > However, if the purpose if making return_address() notrace is just to
> > prevent infinite recursion, where finite recursion is safe, then it
> > feels fixable as described above.
> >
> > Steven, do you know whether such an approach might be safe?
> >
>
> I rewrote the function trace recursion code (see linux-next). The
> function tracer wont recurse on itself. If the return_address() is only
> used by callbacks and not directly by the mcount(ftrace_caller), then
> after the first trace, ftrace wont let recursion of the callback. IOW,
> callbacks of ftrace don't need to worry about re-entrancy at the same
> context level (but do for different contexts, ie. normal, irq, softirq
> and NMI).
>
> (commit edc15cafcbfa3d73f819cae99885a2e35e4cbce5 in linux-next and
> friends)
Cool. Are you aware of return_address being used elsewhere? Currently
I'm not aware of anything else which uses it, and grep is not finding
any calls outside ftrace.h that I can see.
Cheers
---Dave
--
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