[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230316114544.5db09039@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2023 11:45:44 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Florent Revest <revest@...omium.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org, mhiramat@...nel.org,
mark.rutland@....com, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
andrii@...nel.org, kpsingh@...nel.org, jolsa@...nel.org,
xukuohai@...weicloud.com, lihuafei1@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/10] ftrace: Store direct called addresses in their
ops
On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 16:40:48 +0100
Florent Revest <revest@...omium.org> wrote:
> > > @@ -5466,6 +5467,7 @@ __modify_ftrace_direct(struct ftrace_ops *ops, unsigned long addr)
> > > entry->direct = addr;
> > > }
> > > }
> > > + WRITE_ONCE(ops->direct_call, addr);
> >
> > I'm curious about the use of WRITE_ONCE(). It should not go outside the
> > mutex barrier.
>
> This WRITE_ONCE was originally suggested by Mark here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/Y9vW99htjOphDXqY@FVFF77S0Q05N.cambridge.arm.com/#t
>
> My understanding is that it's not so much about avoiding re-ordering
> but rather about avoiding store tearing since a ftrace_caller
> trampoline could concurrently read ops->direct_call. Does that make
> sense ?
Yes, but a comment needs to be added:
/* Prevent store tearing on some archs */
WRITE_ONCE(ops->direct_call, addr);
Or something to that affect. Otherwise I can see it confusing others in the
future. And probably me too, as I'll forget why it was a WRITE_ONCE() by
next month. ;-)
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists