From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: rostedt@goodmis.org (Steven Rostedt)
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 11:36:40 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] ARM: ftrace: Ensure code modifications are synchronised
 across all cpus
In-Reply-To: <20121207162346.GW14363@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
References: <1354817466.30905.13.camel@linaro1.home>
 <1354821581.17101.17.camel@gandalf.local.home>
 <1354872138.3176.15.camel@computer5.home>
 <1354888985.17101.41.camel@gandalf.local.home>
 <1354892111.13000.50.camel@linaro1.home>
 <1354894134.17101.44.camel@gandalf.local.home>
 <20121207162346.GW14363@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Message-ID: <1354898200.17101.50.camel@gandalf.local.home>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Fri, 2012-12-07 at 16:23 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

> That's fine if there are better ways.  If your view is that this would
> bring things "up to the future" consider this: what you suggest is possible
> with the standard ARM 32-bit instruction set.  With the more modern Thumb
> instruction set, because we now effectively have prefixes, where those
> prefixes control the execution of the following instructions, what you
> suggest becomes no longer possible.
> 
> So, it's not a question of bringing stuff up to the future at all... you
> can call it a design regression of you will, but you're really making
> demands about how CPUs work which are outside of your remit.
> 
> Think of this a bit like you changing the opcodes immediately following a
> 'LOCK' prefix on x86.  I suspect divorsing the following opcodes from its
> prefix would be very bad for the instructions atomicity.

But what about the limitations that the function tracer imposes on the
code that gets modified by stop_machine()?

1) the original code is simply a call to mcount

2) on boot up, that call gets converted into a nop

3) the code that gets changed will only be converting a nop to a call
into the function tracer, and back again.

IOW, it's a very limited subset of the ARM assembly that gets touched.
I'm not sure what the op codes are for the above, but I can imagine they
don't impose the prefixes as you described.

If that's the case, is it still possible to change to the breakpoint
method?

-- Steve