This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the systemtap project.
Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86: add kprobe-booster to X86_64
- From: Harvey Harrison <harvey dot harrison at gmail dot com>
- To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo at elte dot hu>, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth at in dot ibm dot com>, Jim Keniston <jkenisto at us dot ibm dot com>, Roland McGrath <roland at redhat dot com>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan at infradead dot org>, prasanna at in dot ibm dot com, anil dot s dot keshavamurthy at intel dot com, davem at davemloft dot net, systemtap-ml <systemtap at sources dot redhat dot com>, LKML <linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org>, Andrew Morton <akpm at linux-foundation dot org>
- Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:21:34 -0800
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86: add kprobe-booster to X86_64
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; bh=t5wsokxZ8I/PwAbH0s8wvOeiYRX46ctpi+isTboa994=; b=u4P8q0bLyph5WYFY8JQXWtXnhLIH9i54VIJV85lxhnuk4l2uWweo5LP3CFhF6jscUglOMX3/MmoN0dlEz3Xqi5qCLtgihzdBgiwVjCWh1LGJ6NXwubak3BS89EMGIGLVwZ7oix/D0FEV24iW8yIK+5q1+rSGs+x0a48RY41+1F0=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=HGPg1VUOTUnU8LErWy/mlluSy08A7NNv3ZSWeIctVEDkOPS+U7kkq2Y1Y+3QdKmw2arMeVv0bvztoyBNgnNP7q5vojDWQshrY/2k3mP1Zo5lN/5rwaeleQxF+cZDuACR1ympQsFeNQ59ZPNFJmEqvQZW+SoAWygUte90JbikJ/Y=
- References: <1197930464.23402.112.camel@brick> <20071218112936.GE9002@elte.hu> <1197978160.7734.31.camel@brick> <4767D02C.firstname.lastname@example.org> <1198031400.7734.41.camel@brick> <4768A18F.email@example.com>
On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 23:43 -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> Harvey Harrison wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 08:50 -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> >> Hi Harvey,
> >> Thank you for cleaning this up.
> >> Harvey Harrison wrote:
> >>> Subject: [PATCH] x86: kprobes leftover cleanups
> >>> Eliminate __always_inline, all of these static functions are
> >>> only called once. Minor whitespace cleanup. Eliminate one
> >>> supefluous return at end of void function. Reverse sense of
> >>> #ifndef to be #ifdef to show the case only affects X86_32.
> >> Unfortunately, to prevent kprobe recursive call, all functions which
> >> is called from kprobes must be inlined or have __kprobes.
> >> If __always_inline macro still work, I prefer to use it. If not,
> >> it must have a __kprobe attribute like as below.
> > I thought all static functions that were only called once were
> > automatically inlined these days? Otherwise __always_inline and
> > inline are exactly the same in the kernel.
> Yes, it will be (not obviously) inlined, currently.
> However, IMHO, it is not fail-safe coding.
Fair enough, you seem to have a deeper understanding of the code than
I, I'd suggest __kprobes as a better annotation for this purpose though.
> I think we might better take care of someone who will modify the code
> in the future. If they call those functions from other place,
> it will not be inlined, and may be placed out of .kprobes.text.
> In that case, we can not prevent inserting kprobes in those functions.
> Thus, I recommend you to add __kprobes on those functions.
> That indicates which functions will be used by kprobes and gives
> hints how to write functions which will be called from kprobes.
> (And also, it simplifies coding rule.)