[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <74090798-7d93-0713-982c-6f0247118d20@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 09:50:17 +0800
From: ηθ΄ <yun.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
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>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>,
Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.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 1/2] ftrace: disable preemption on the testing of
recursion
On 2021/10/12 δΈε8:24, Miroslav Benes wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> func = list_first_or_null_rcu(&ops->func_stack, struct klp_func,
>> stack_node);
>> @@ -120,7 +115,6 @@ static void notrace klp_ftrace_handler(unsigned long ip,
>> klp_arch_set_pc(fregs, (unsigned long)func->new_func);
>>
>> unlock:
>> - preempt_enable_notrace();
>> ftrace_test_recursion_unlock(bit);
>> }
>
> I don't like this change much. We have preempt_disable there not because
> of ftrace_test_recursion, but because of RCU. ftrace_test_recursion was
> added later. Yes, it would work with the change, but it would also hide
> things which should not be hidden in my opinion.
Not very sure about the backgroup stories, but just found this in
'Documentation/trace/ftrace-uses.rst':
Note, on success,
ftrace_test_recursion_trylock() will disable preemption, and the
ftrace_test_recursion_unlock() will enable it again (if it was previously
enabled).
Seems like this lock pair was supposed to take care the preemtion itself?
Regards,
Michael Wang
>
> Miroslav
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists