[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1432006027.8339.3.camel@ellerman.id.au>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 13:27:07 +1000
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Cc: Torsten Duwe <duwe@....de>,
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)
On Mon, 2015-05-18 at 14:29 +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> 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).
OK, so I wonder why that's not working for us?
> 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.
I disagree. Correctly annotating all functions that might be called ever and
for all time is a maintenance nightmare and is never going to work in the long
term.
cheers
--
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