Re: [PATCH 2/5][RFC] tracing: move function profiler data out offunction struct

[Ingo Molnar]

* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> > 
> > * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > +/* Interrupts must be disabled calling this */
> > > +static struct ftrace_profile *
> > > +ftrace_profile_alloc(unsigned long ip, bool alloc_safe)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct ftrace_profile *rec = NULL;
> > > +
> > > +	/* prevent recursion */
> > > +	if (atomic_inc_return(&__get_cpu_var(ftrace_profile_disable)) != 1)
> > > +		goto out;
> > > +
> > > +	__raw_spin_lock(&ftrace_profile_rec_lock);
> > > +
> > > +	/* Try to always keep another page available */
> > > +	if (!profile_pages->next && alloc_safe)
> > > +		profile_pages->next = (void *)get_zeroed_page(GFP_ATOMIC);
> > 
> > this does not seem to be NMI safe.
> 
> The atomic_inc_return protects against NMIs, since this is the only place 
> the lock is taken.

i mean, if this code executes _ni_ an NMI. Or that cannot happen? We 
trace nmis too, dont we?

> > This all would be solved much more robustly by the function 
> > attributes hash approach i suggested in the previous mail. If 
> > percpu_alloc() is done for 20,000 functions the memory 
> > allocation overhead is no big deal.
> 
> Later patches create a per-cpu buffers and removes the lock.

ok :)

	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/