[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1373561972.17876.51.camel@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 12:59:32 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
tglx@...utronix.de, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
trinity@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: timer: lockup in run_timer_softirq()
On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 12:55 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > Other than that, a function tracer environment that is safer to use might be
> > useful for other people as well.
>
> Not sure how to make the environment safe, as the main purpose of the
> function trace is to debug those hard to debug locations, like NMIs,
> RCU, dynamic ticks, etc. To ensure a "safe" environment, it would
> cripple the tracer.
>
> Hmm, what would you state as a safe environment? How can we detect if
> the environment is safe to trace or not?
Maybe I misunderstood you. You mean to have this environment be
something for not just perf, and have the macro be:
NONSAFE_TRACE(__local_bh_enable);
?
Then, any ftrace user could set a flag in the registering of its ops to
'safe_only_functions'. And it will ignore all of these locations.
There's really not many of them, so it may not be too hard to weed out.
-- 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