[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.00.1505181428360.2306@twin.jikos.cz>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 14:29:52 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
To: Torsten Duwe <duwe@....de>
cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
ppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ppc64 ftrace: mark data_access callees "notrace"
(pt.1)
yOn Sat, 16 May 2015, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> > > There's got to be a better solution than this.
> >
> > Can you think of a better approach?
>
> Maybe a per thread variable to lock out a recursion into tracing?
> Thanks for your doubt.
ftrace already handles recursion protection by itself (depending on the
per-ftrace-ops FTRACE_OPS_FL_RECURSION_SAFE flag).
It's however not really well-defined what to do when recursion would
happen. Therefore __notrace__ annotation, that just completely avoid such
situation by making tracing impossible, looks like saner general solution
to me.
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
--
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