[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20170928234818.e5fa6732dee4bd17b489b91f@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 23:48:18 -0700
From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, x86@...nel.org,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip v3 6/7] kprobes/x86: Remove disable_irq from
ftrace-based/optimized kprobe
On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 09:25:41 +0200
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> * Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > Actually kprobes doesn't need to disable irq if it is
> > called from ftrace/jump trampoline code because
> > Documentation/kprobes.txt says
> >
> > -----
> > Probe handlers are run with preemption disabled. Depending on the
> > architecture and optimization state, handlers may also run with
> > interrupts disabled (e.g., kretprobe handlers and optimized kprobe
> > handlers run without interrupt disabled on x86/x86-64).
> > -----
> >
> > So let's remove irq disabling from those handlers.
>
> > - local_irq_save(flags);
>
> The title is talking about disable_irq():
>
> kprobes/x86: Remove disable_irq from ftrace-based/optimized kprobe
>
> ... but the patch is actually using local_irq_save(), which is an entirely
> different thing! You probably wanted to say:
>
> kprobes/x86: Remove irq disabling from ftrace-based/optimized kprobes
Correct! That's my mistake. thanks!
>
> Also note the plural of 'kprobes' when we refer to them as a generic thing.
>
> I fixed the title, but _please_ read changelogs more carefully before sending
> them.
Thank you again,
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo
--
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists