[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <878ux33b3l.fsf@sejong.aot.lge.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 10:12:46 +0900
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@....com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Hyeoncheol Lee <cheol.lee@....com>,
Hemant Kumar <hkshaw@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"zhangwei\(Jovi\)" <jovi.zhangwei@...wei.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/13] tracing/uprobes: Fetch args before reserving a ring buffer
Hi Oleg,
On Mon, 4 Nov 2013 15:35:17 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Hi Namhyung,
>
> On 11/04, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >> + if (atomic_dec_and_test(&uprobe_buffer_ref)) {
>> >> + free_percpu(uprobe_cpu_buffer);
>> >> + uprobe_cpu_buffer = NULL;
>> >> + }
>> >> +
>> >> WARN_ON(!uprobe_filter_is_empty(&tu->filter));
>> >
>> > Do we really need atomic_t? probe_event_enable/disable is called under
>> > event_mutex and we rely on this fact anyway.
>>
>> Looking at the code, it seems probe_event_enable/disable() is called
>> without event_mutex when it called from sys_perf_event_open().
>
> Where?
>
> __ftrace_set_clr_event(), perf_trace_init() or perf_trace_destroy()
> hold event_mutex. We rely on this fact anyway.
Ah, you're right. My eyes simply missed it. ;-)
Thanks,
Namhyung
--
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