[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190501150025.40169f1d@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2019 15:00:25 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Nicolai Stange <nstange@...e.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.ibm.com>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v3] ftrace/x86_64: Emulate call function while
updating in breakpoint handler
On Wed, 1 May 2019 20:57:26 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 11:01:07AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > This looks sane to me, although I'm surprised that we didn't already
> > have an annotation for the nonstandard stack frame for asm files. That
> > probably would be cleaner in a separate commit, but I guess it doesn't
> > matter.
> >
> > Anyway, I'm willing to consider the entry code version if it looks a
> > _lot_ simpler than this (so I'd like to see them side-by-side), but
> > it's not like this looks all that complicated to me either.
>
> So I posted one earlier today:
>
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190501131117.GW2623@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
>
> it's about a 1/3rd the number of lines and has 32bit support. It also
> provides all the bits required to implement static_call().
That's the patch I started with.
>
> That is; I think I'm firmly in favour of the entry variant -- provided
> it actually works of course.
And it works. I ran it through tools/testing/selftests/ftrace/ftracetest
and it passed as good as without that patch.
I haven't ran it through my full test suite. I can do that and see how
it makes out.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists