[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241029165018.r4l5wix24s3f22c6@treble.attlocal.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2024 09:50:18 -0700
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Indu Bhagat <indu.bhagat@...cle.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org, Jordan Rome <jordalgo@...a.com>,
Sam James <sam@...too.org>, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kerne.org,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
Jens Remus <jremus@...ux.ibm.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 09/19] unwind: Introduce sframe user space unwinding
On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 02:27:09PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > +int sframe_add_section(unsigned long sframe_addr, unsigned long text_start,
> > + unsigned long text_end)
> > +{
> > + struct mm_struct *mm = current->mm;
> > + struct vm_area_struct *sframe_vma;
> > +
> > + mmap_read_lock(mm);
>
> DEFINE_GUARD(mmap_read_lock, struct mm_struct *,
> mmap_read_lock(_T), mmap_read_unlock(_T))
>
> in include/linux/mmap_lock.h ?
Will do.
> > @@ -2784,6 +2785,16 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(prctl, int, option, unsigned long, arg2, unsigned long, arg3,
> > case PR_RISCV_SET_ICACHE_FLUSH_CTX:
> > error = RISCV_SET_ICACHE_FLUSH_CTX(arg2, arg3);
> > break;
> > + case PR_ADD_SFRAME:
> > + if (arg5)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + error = sframe_add_section(arg2, arg3, arg4);
> > + break;
> > + case PR_REMOVE_SFRAME:
> > + if (arg3 || arg4 || arg5)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + error = sframe_remove_section(arg2);
> > + break;
> > default:
> > error = -EINVAL;
> > break;
>
> So I realize that mtree has an internal lock, but are we sure we don't
> want a lock around those prctl()s?
Not that I can tell? It relies on the mtree internal locking for
atomicity.
For sframe_remove_section() it uses srcu to delay the freeing until all
sframe_find()'s have completed.
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists