[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Ywh9uo7fhRMQjrSl@krava>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2022 10:00:58 +0200
From: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] ftrace: Add support to keep some functions out of ftrace
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:23:24AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 4:45 AM Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 11:32:55PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 02:00:21PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 1:50 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 22:27:07 +0200
> > > > > Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > ok, so the problem with __attribute__((patchable_function_entry(5))) is that
> > > > > > it puts function address into __patchable_function_entries section, which is
> > > > > > one of ftrace locations source:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > #define MCOUNT_REC() . = ALIGN(8); \
> > > > > > __start_mcount_loc = .; \
> > > > > > KEEP(*(__mcount_loc)) \
> > > > > > KEEP(*(__patchable_function_entries)) \
> > > > > > __stop_mcount_loc = .; \
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > it looks like __patchable_function_entries is used for other than x86 archs,
> > > > > > so we perhaps we could have x86 specific MCOUNT_REC macro just with
> > > > > > __mcount_loc section?
> > > > >
> > > > > So something like this:
> > > > >
> > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_X86
> > > > > # define NON_MCOUNT_PATCHABLE KEEP(*(__patchable_function_entries))
> > > > > # define MCOUNT_PATCHABLE
> > > > > #else
> > > > > # define NON_MCOUNT_PATCHABLE
> > > > > # define MCOUNT_PATCHABLE KEEP(*(__patchable_function_entries))
> > > > > #endif
> > > > >
> > > > > #define MCOUNT_REC() . = ALIGN(8); \
> > > > > __start_mcount_loc = .; \
> > > > > KEEP(*(__mcount_loc)) \
> > > > > MCOUNT_PATCHABLE \
> > > > > __stop_mcount_loc = .; \
> > > > > NON_MCOUNT_PATCHABLE \
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > ??
> > > >
> > > > That's what more or less Peter's patch is doing:
> > > > Here it is again for reference:
> > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/peterz/queue.git/commit/?id=8d075bdf11193f1d276bf19fa56b4b8dfe24df9e
> > >
> > > ah nice, and discards the __patchable_function_entries section, great
> > >
> >
> > tested change below with Peter's change above and it seems to work,
> > once it get merged I'll send full patch
>
> Peter,
> what is the ETA to land your changes?
> That particular commit is detached in your git tree.
> Did you move it to a different branch?
>
> Just trying to figure out the logistics to land Jiri's fix below.
> We can take it into bpf-next, since it's harmless as-is,
> but it won't have an effect until your change lands.
> Sounds like they both will get in during the next merge window?
I discussed with Peter and I'll send his change together with my fix
jirka
Powered by blists - more mailing lists