[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53B5FCC3.8010303@hitachi.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2014 10:00:51 +0900
From: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.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,
"yrl.pp-manager.tt@...achi.com" <yrl.pp-manager.tt@...achi.com>
Subject: Re: probe_event_disable()->synchronize_sched()
(2014/07/03 16:44), Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Hi Masami,
>
> On Thu, 03 Jul 2014 14:46:09 +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>> One possible scenario is here; someone disables an event and tries to remove
>> it (both will be done by different syscalls). If we don't synchronize
>> the first disabling, the event flag set disabled, but the event itself
>> is not disabled. Thus event handler is still possible to be running
>> somewhere when it is removed.
>
> But, IIUC both of disable and remove path are protected by event_mutex.
> So one cannot see the case of disabled event flag but enabled event, no?
No, the flag is not protect the trace event handler itself.
I meant that running handlers and the flag was not synchronized.
Thank you,
--
Masami HIRAMATSU
Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Research 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