From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1752427AbdC2DCo (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 28 Mar 2017 23:02:44 -0400
Received: from LGEAMRELO11.lge.com ([156.147.23.51]:42266 "EHLO
        lgeamrelo11.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1752092AbdC2DCn (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 28 Mar 2017 23:02:43 -0400
X-Original-SENDERIP: 156.147.1.151
X-Original-MAILFROM: namhyung@kernel.org
X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.227.17
X-Original-MAILFROM: namhyung@kernel.org
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 12:02:34 +0900
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kernel-team@lge.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] ftrace: Fix function pid filter on instances
Message-ID: <20170329030234.GD19448@sejong>
References: <20170329014625.19346-1-namhyung@kernel.org>
 <20170329014625.19346-2-namhyung@kernel.org>
 <20170328220841.6823958d@grimm.local.home>
 <20170329022037.GA19448@sejong>
 <20170328222855.78af0d53@grimm.local.home>
 <20170329024227.GC19448@sejong>
 <20170328225843.4ed16b0f@grimm.local.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170328225843.4ed16b0f@grimm.local.home>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.0 (2017-02-23)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:58:43PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 11:42:27 +0900
> Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:28:55PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 11:20:37 +0900
> > > Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > >   
> > > > > Actually, if this is called after event_trace_del_tracer(), the tr is
> > > > > already invisible and nothing new should change.    
> > > > 
> > > > I don't follow.  After event_trace_del_tracer(), the tr is invisible
> > > > from the probe of event tracing but still is visible from the probe of
> > > > function tracing, right?  
> > > 
> > > Well, nothing should be able to get to the set_ftrace_filter file when
> > > there. Because of the tr->ref count. But keeping the lock is safer
> > > regardless, and it's not a fast path, so the extra overhead if the lock
> > > isn't needed is no big deal.  
> > 
> > Oh, I meant if a pid filter was already set when removing the
> > instance.  Function filters should be inactive since function tracer
> > was finished (via tracing_set_nop), but the probe on sched_switch
> > event (for pid filter) is still active and references the tr.
> > 
> 
> I think we are talking about two different things. I was simply talking
> about the need to take the ftrace_lock or not in the
> clear_ftrace_pids() call here. I don't think we have to, because nothing
> should be in contention with it at that point. But it doesn't hurt to
> take it.

Right, I agree with you wrt the locking.

Thanks,
Namhyung