[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <AED99B11-8739-450F-932C-EF38C20D44CA@amacapital.net>
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2020 06:37:04 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Juergen Gross <JGross@...e.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 4/8] x86/entry: Move irq tracing on syscall entry to C-code
> On Mar 1, 2020, at 2:16 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 11:25:24 -0800
>> Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> While the tracer itself seems to handle this correctly, what about
>>>> things like BPF programs which can be attached to tracepoints and
>>>> function trace entries?
>>>
>>> I think that everything using the tracing code, including BPF, should
>>> either do its own rcuidle stuff or explicitly not execute if we’re
>>> not in CONTEXT_KERNEL. That is, we probably need to patch BPF.
>>
>> That's basically the route we are taking.
>
> Ok, but for the time being anything before/after CONTEXT_KERNEL is unsafe
> except trace_hardirq_off/on() as those trace functions do not allow to
> attach anything AFAICT.
Can you point to whatever makes those particular functions special? I failed to follow the macro maze.
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists