[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140703154131.GA5610@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 17:41:31 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>
Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@...ux.intel.com>,
"zhangwei(Jovi)" <jovi.zhangwei@...wei.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: probe_event_disable()->synchronize_sched()
On 07/03, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2014 21:31:47 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > And. I am puzzled by probe_event_disable()->synchronize_sched(). Why
> > do we need it? I mean, why we can't use call_rcu() ? The comment says
> > "synchronize with u{,ret}probe_trace_func" but it doesn't explain _why_
> > do we need to sync.
>
> It looks like the code was copied from trace_kprobe.c file. But IIUC,
> unlike kprobes, uprobe events are always called in a process context.
>
> Also u{,ret}probe_trace_func() call handlers under rcu_read_lock() not
> rcu_read_lock_sched() so I guess the synchronize_sched() can go.
Heh ;) I didn't even notice that "synchronize" and "lock" do not match.
So this should be fixed anyway. But lets discuss other issues first.
Oleg.
--
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