[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140630165626.GA5619@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 22:26:26 +0530
From: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@...ux.intel.com>,
"zhangwei(Jovi)" <jovi.zhangwei@...wei.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] tracing/uprobes: Revert "Support mix of ftrace and
perf"
* Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> [2014-06-27 19:01:36]:
> This reverts commit 43fe98913c9f67e3b523615ee3316f9520a623e0.
>
> This patch is very wrong. Firstly, this change leads to unbalanced
> uprobe_unregister(). Just for example,
>
> # perf probe -x /lib/libc.so.6 syscall
> # echo 1 >> /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/events/probe_libc/enable
> # perf record -e probe_libc:syscall whatever
>
> after that uprobe is dead (unregistered) but the user of ftrace/perf
> can't know this, and it looks as if nobody hits this probe.
>
> This would be easy to fix, but there are other reasons why it is not
> simple to mix ftrace and perf. If nothing else, they can't share the
> same ->consumer.filter. This is fixable too, but probably we need to
> fix the poorly designed uprobe_register() interface first. At least
> "register" and "apply" should be clearly separated.
>
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org # v3.14
> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Acked-by: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju
--
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