linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] percpu: improve percpu_alloc

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YnvyvaPWONjULpIa@carbon>
Date:   Wed, 11 May 2022 10:30:37 -0700
From:   Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
To:     Vasily Averin <vvs@...nvz.org>
Cc:     Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, kernel@...nvz.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] percpu: improve percpu_alloc_percpu event trace

On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 08:11:54AM +0300, Vasily Averin wrote:
> On 5/11/22 05:33, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > On Fri, May 06, 2022 at 10:29:25PM +0300, Vasily Averin wrote:
> >>  TRACE_EVENT(percpu_alloc_percpu,
> >>  
> >> -	TP_PROTO(bool reserved, bool is_atomic, size_t size,
> >> -		 size_t align, void *base_addr, int off, void __percpu *ptr),
> >> +	TP_PROTO(unsigned long call_site,
> >> +		 bool reserved, bool is_atomic, size_t size,
> >> +		 size_t align, void *base_addr, int off,
> >> +		 void __percpu *ptr, size_t bytes_alloc, gfp_t gfp_flags),
> > 
> > Don't we want to preserve the order and add the call_site at the end?
> > Trace events are not ABI, but if we don't have a strong reason to break it,
> > I'd preserve the old order.
> 
> I checked recent trace patches and found that order changes is acceptable.
> 
> commit 8c39b8bc82aafcc8dd378bd79c76fac8e8a89c8d
> Author: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
> Date:   Fri Jan 14 11:44:54 2022 +0000
> 
>     cachefiles: Make some tracepoint adjustments
> 
> -           TP_printk("o=%08x i=%lx e=%d",
> -                     __entry->obj, __entry->ino, __entry->error)
> +           TP_printk("o=%08x dB=%lx B=%lx e=%d",
> +                     __entry->obj, __entry->dino, __entry->ino, __entry->error)
> 
> On the other hand I'm agree to keep old order by default.
> that's why I added bytes_alloc and gfp_flags to end of output.
> However I think call_site is an exception. In all cases found, 
> call_site is output first.
> For me personally it simplified output parsing.
> 
> So I would like to know Steven's position on this question.

Ok, not a strong opinion, I think both options are acceptable.

Thanks!