[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y/NNDXlXth2HgSUf@FVFF77S0Q05N>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2023 10:35:57 +0000
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc: Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>,
Björn Töpel <bjorn@...nel.org>,
"liaochang (A)" <liaochang1@...wei.com>, palmer@...belt.com,
paul.walmsley@...ive.com, conor.dooley@...rochip.com,
penberg@...nel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Guo Ren <guoren@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] riscv: kprobe: Optimize kprobe with accurate atomicity
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 12:23:51AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 10:33:05 +0000
> Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 09:48:29AM +0800, Guo Ren wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 11:49 PM Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
> > Masami, Steve, and I had a chat at the tracing summit late last year (which
> > unfortunately, was not recorded), and what we'd like to do is get each
> > architecture to have FPROBE (and FTRACE_WITH_ARGS), at which point OPTPROBE
> > and KRETPROBE become redundant and could be removed.
>
> No, the fprobe will replace the KRETPROBE but not OPTPROBE. The OPTPROBE
> is completely different one. Fprobe is used only for function entry, but
> optprobe is applied to the function body.
Sorry, I had OPTPROBE and KPROBE_ON_FTRACE confused in my head, and was
thinking that FPROBE would supersede KPROBE_ON_FTRACE and KRETPROBE.
> > i.e. we'd keep KPROBES as a "you can trace any instruction" feature, but in the
> > few cases where OPTPROBES can make things fater by using FTRACE, you should
> > just use that directly via FPROBE.
>
> I think what you are saying is KPROBE_ON_FTRACE, and that will be replaced by
> FPROBES.
Yes, sorry for the confusion.
Mark.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists