From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@krystal.dyndns.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] ring-buffer: less locking and only disable preemption
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 16:44:23 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081004144423.GA14918@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0810041015330.4551@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> The dynamic function tracer is another issue. The problem with NMIs
> has nothing to do with locking, or corrupting the buffers. It has to
> do with the dynamic code modification. Whenever we modify code, we
> must guarantee that it will not be executed on another CPU.
>
> Kstop_machine serves this purpose rather well. We can modify code
> without worrying it will be executed on another CPU, except for NMIs.
> The problem now comes where an NMI can come in and execute the code
> being modified. That's why I put in all the notrace, lines. But it
> gets difficult because of nmi_notifier can call all over the kernel.
> Perhaps, we can simply disable the nmi-notifier when we are doing the
> kstop_machine call?
that would definitely be one way to reduce the cross section, but not
enough i'm afraid. For example in the nmi_watchdog=2 case we call into
various lapic functions and paravirt lapic handlers which makes it all
spread to 3-4 paravirtualization flavors ...
sched_clock()'s notrace aspects were pretty manageable, but this in its
current form is not.
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-10-04 14:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-10-04 6:00 [PATCH 0/3] ring-buffer: less locking and only disable preemption Steven Rostedt
2008-10-04 6:00 ` [PATCH 1/3] ring-buffer: move page indexes into page headers Steven Rostedt
2008-10-04 6:00 ` [PATCH 2/3] ring-buffer: make reentrant Steven Rostedt
2008-10-04 6:01 ` [PATCH 3/3] ftrace: make some tracers reentrant Steven Rostedt
2008-10-04 8:40 ` [PATCH 0/3] ring-buffer: less locking and only disable preemption Ingo Molnar
2008-10-04 14:34 ` Steven Rostedt
2008-10-04 14:44 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2008-10-04 17:41 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-10-04 22:27 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-10-04 23:21 ` Steven Rostedt
2008-10-06 17:10 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-10-05 10:13 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-10-06 13:53 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-10-04 16:33 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-10-04 17:18 ` Steven Rostedt
2008-10-06 17:13 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20081004144423.GA14918@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=compudj@krystal.dyndns.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox