Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] tracing/syscalls: core infrastructure forsyscalls tracing

[Ingo Molnar]

* Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:42:11 +0100 Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > +void start_ftrace_syscalls(void)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned long flags;
> > +	struct task_struct *g, *t;
> > +
> > +	if (atomic_inc_return(&refcount) != 1)
> > +		goto out;
> > +
> > +	arch_init_ftrace_syscalls();
> > +	read_lock_irqsave(&tasklist_lock, flags);
> > +
> > +	do_each_thread(g, t) {
> > +		set_tsk_thread_flag(t, TIF_SYSCALL_FTRACE);
> > +	} while_each_thread(g, t);
> > +
> > +	read_unlock_irqrestore(&tasklist_lock, flags);
> > +out:
> > +	atomic_dec(&refcount);
> > +}
> > +
> > +void stop_ftrace_syscalls(void)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned long flags;
> > +	struct task_struct *g, *t;
> > +
> > +	if (atomic_dec_return(&refcount))
> > +		goto out;
> > +
> > +	read_lock_irqsave(&tasklist_lock, flags);
> > +
> > +	do_each_thread(g, t) {
> > +		clear_tsk_thread_flag(t, TIF_SYSCALL_FTRACE);
> > +	} while_each_thread(g, t);
> > +
> > +	read_unlock_irqrestore(&tasklist_lock, flags);
> > +out:
> > +	atomic_inc(&refcount);
> > +}
> 
> What is this `refcount' thing trying to do?  afacit it does 
> not prevent the two loops from running concurrently and making 
> a mess.
> 
> If it _is_ trying to prevent that from happening, then why not 
> use plain old mutex_lock()?

yeah - already commented about that to Frederic over IRC. A 
plain flag, checked inside the tasklist lock is more than 
enough.

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/