[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1193d016-ec4d-2b29-4d33-5a04ca85c14d@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 09:45:45 +0800
From: 王贇 <yun.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
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>,
Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...nel.org>, linux-csky@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ftrace: prevent preemption in
perf_ftrace_function_call()
On 2021/10/12 下午7:20, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 01:40:31PM +0800, 王贇 wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_event_perf.c b/kernel/trace/trace_event_perf.c
>> index 6aed10e..33c2f76 100644
>> --- a/kernel/trace/trace_event_perf.c
>> +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_event_perf.c
>> @@ -441,12 +441,19 @@ void perf_trace_buf_update(void *record, u16 type)
>> if (!rcu_is_watching())
>> return;
>>
>> + /*
>> + * Prevent CPU changing from now on. rcu must
>> + * be in watching if the task was migrated and
>> + * scheduled.
>> + */
>> + preempt_disable_notrace();
>> +
>> if ((unsigned long)ops->private != smp_processor_id())
>> - return;
>> + goto out;
>>
>> bit = ftrace_test_recursion_trylock(ip, parent_ip);
>> if (bit < 0)
>> - return;
>> + goto out;
>>
>> event = container_of(ops, struct perf_event, ftrace_ops);
>>
>
> This seems rather daft, wouldn't it be easier to just put that check
> under the recursion thing?
In case if the condition matched, extra lock/unlock will be introduced,
but I guess that's acceptable since this seems unlikely to happen :-P
Will move the check in v2.
Regards,
Michael Wang
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists