[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151203150926.GG11337@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 15:09:26 +0000
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: libin <huawei.libin@...wei.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
catalin.marinas@....com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, guohanjun@...wei.com,
dingtianhong@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: ftrace: stop using kstop_machine to
enable/disable tracing
On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 10:05:25AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2015 09:38:21 +0000
> Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com> wrote:
> > I think you're missing the case where the instruction changes under our
> > feet after we've read it but before we've replaced it (e.g. due to module
> > unloading). I think that's why ftrace_modify_code has the comment about
> > lack of locking thanks to stop_machine.
>
> Note, ftrace has a module notifier that is called when a module is
> being unloaded and before the text goes away. This code grabs the
> ftrace_lock mutex and removes the module functions from the ftrace
> list, such that it will no longer do any modifications to that module's
> text.
>
> The update to make functions be traced is done under the ftrace_lock
> mutex as well.
>
> You do not need to worry about module text disappearing from
> underneath you while you do your modifications.
Good.
> Now, if there's comments that suggest otherwise, they need to be
> updated.
Yeah, I think the comments on x86 and arm64 are out of date. They also
mention the freeing of __init sections -- is that still a concern?
Will
--
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