[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51DBC7C1.9000601@hitachi.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 17:20:17 +0900
From: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
jovi.zhangwei@...wei.com, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [RFC PATCH] tracing/kprobe: Wait for disabling all running
kprobe handlers
(2013/07/09 17:07), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 05:01:45PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>> + if (wait) {
>> + /*
>> + * synchronize with kprobe_trace_func/kretprobe_trace_func
>> + * to ensure disabled (all running handlers are finished)
>> + */
>> + synchronize_sched();
>> + kfree(link); /* Ignored if link == NULL */
>> + }
>
> What's not clear to me from this comment is if we're only waiting for kfree()?
> In that case shouldn't we use call_rcu() to free the thing? Or do we need the
> sync_sched() for other purposes as well?
No, this is not only for kfree, but also to ensure completing
disabling process, because trace_remove_event_call() supposes
that for releasing event_call related objects (Those objects
will be accessed in the handlers).
Thank you,
--
Masami HIRAMATSU
IT Management Research Dept. Linux Technology Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com
--
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