Re: kksymoops

Re: kksymoops

[Kevin Brosius]

> Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 
> > Rusty,
> >
> > What is the status of kksymoops?
> 
> 
> 
> LOL -- look at me eat my words.
> 
> I see it's now in Linus's tree -- thanks much!
> 

Thanks guys! (I figured I'd give him a day or two before pinging Rusty
directly.)  This'll help chase some driver problems on the USB side.

-- 
Kevin

Module Refcount & Stuff mini-FAQ

[Rusty Russell]

[ Suggestions welcome ]

Golden Rule: If you are calling though a function pointer into a
(different) module, you must hold a reference to that module.
Otherwise you risk sleeping in the module while it is unloaded.

Q: How do I get a reference to a module?
A: Usually, a successful call to try_module_get(owner).  You don't
   need to check for owner != NULL, BTW.

Q: When does try_module_get(owner) fail?
A: When the module is not ready to be entered (ie. still in
   init_module) or it is being removed.  It fails to prevent you
   entering the module as it is being discarded (init might fail, or
   it's being removed).

Q: But modules call my register() routine which wants to call back
   into one of the function pointers immediately, and so
   try_module_get() fails!
A: You're being called from the module, so someone already has a
   reference (unless there's a bug), so you don't need a
   try_module_get().

   This does mean that if you were to register a structure for
   *another* module (does anyone do this?) you'd need to have a
   reference to it.

Q: How do I put the reference back?
A: Using module_put(owner) (owner == NULL is OK).

Q: Do I really need to put try_module_get() before every function ptr
   call?
A: If the function does not sleep (any cannot be preempted) ie. is
   called in softirq or hardirq context, you can omit this step, since
   you obviously won't sleep inside the module.

   Also, most structs have clear "start" and "stop" functions
   (eg. mount/umount), so you only need one try_module_get()
   on start, and module_put() on stop.

Q: Is it safe to call try_module_get() and module_put() from an
   interrtupt / softirq?
A: Yes.

Q: My code use "MOD_INC_USE_COUNT".  Do I still need to adjust my
   module count when someone calls one of my functions?
A: No, you never need to adjust your own module count.  There are five
   ways a function in your module can get called: firstly, it could be
   your module_init() function, in which case the module code holds a
   reference.  It could be another module using one of your
   EXPORT_SYMBOL'ed functions, in which case you cannot be removed
   since they would have to be removed first.  It could be a module
   which found an EXPORT_SYMBOL'ed function using symbol_get(), in
   which case they hold a reference count.  It could be through a
   function pointer which your module gave out previously, which is
   discussed above.  Finally, it could be from within your own module,
   in which case someone must already hold a reference.

Q: My code uses "__MOD_INC_USE_COUNT(reg->owner)", but now I get a
   warning at runtime that it is unsafe.  What do I need to do?
A: You need to use try_module_get(), and not call into the module if
   it fails (act as if it hasn't registered yet).  Note that you no
   longer need to check for NULL yourself, try_module_get() does that.

Q: My code used "GET_USE_COUNT(module)" to get the reference count.
A: Don't do that.  If module unloading is disabled, there is no
   reference count, and there is never a single value you can assign
   to.

Q: My code used "try_inc_mod_count(module)" to get the reference
   count.  Should I change it?
A: No hurry.  try_module_get() is exactly the same: the new name
   reflects that this is now the only way to get a reference.

Q: How does the code in try_module_get() work?
A: It disables preemption for a moment, checks the live flag, and then
   increments a per-cpu counter if the module is live.  This is even
   lighter-weight (in icache and cycles) than using a brlock, but has
   the same effect.  If CONFIG_MODULE_UNLOAD=n, it just becomes a
   check that the module is live.

Q: How does the module remove code work?
A: It stops the machine by scheduling threads for every other CPU,
   then they all disable interrupts.  At this stage we know that noone
   is in try_module_get(), so we can reliably read the counter.  If
   zero, or the rmmod user specified --wait, we set the live flag to
   false.  After this, the reference count should not increase, and
   each module_put() will wake us up, so we can check the counter
   again.

Q: Are these changes all so you could implement an in-kernel module
   linker?
A: No, they were to prevent load and unload races without altering
   every module, nor introducing drastic new requirements.

Q: Doesn't putting linking code into the kernel just add bloat?
A: The total linking code is about 200 generic lines, 100
   x86-specific lines.  The ia64 linking code is about 500 lines (it's
   the most complex).  Richard Henderson has a great suggestion for
   simplifying it furthur, which I'm implementing now.  "insmod" is
   now a single portable system call, meaning insmod can be written in
   about 20 lines of code.

   The previous code required to implement the two module loading
   system call, the module querying system call, and the /proc/ksyms
   output, required a little more code than the current x86 linker.

Q: Why not just fix the old code?
A: Because having something so intimate with the kernel in userspace
   greatly restricts what changes the kernel can make.  Moving into
   the kernel means I have implemented modversions, typesafe
   extensible module parameters and kallsyms without altering
   userspace in any way.  Future extensions won't have to worry about
   the modversions problem.

Q: Why not implement two-stage insert / two-stage delete?
A: Because I implemented it first and it sucked.  And because this
   *is* two-stage insert and two-stage delete, without exposing it to
   the modules using it, with the added advantage that the second
   stage is atomic (activation/deactivation is simply changing
   mod->live, modulo locking implementation magic detailed above).
   This prevents the race between deactivating the module and finding
   that someone has starting using it as you are deactivating it.

Hope that helps?
Rusty.
--
  Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.

kksymoops

[Jeff Garzik]

Rusty,

What is the status of kksymoops?

I realize that you have a full plate, but [for the short time it existed 
in mainline] this was a incredibly useful feature for end users 
providing bug reports to me (and others).

I'm _not_ asking "when", just wondering what the plan is to resuscitate 
kksymoops.

	Jeff

Re: kksymoops

[Rusty Russell]

In message <3DD9AB88.4000102@pobox.com> you write:
> I'm _not_ asking "when", just wondering what the plan is to resuscitate 
> kksymoops.

Looks like someone pushed my patch.  Erm, OK, wonder if it works on
x86? 8)

My mental TODO list looked something like this:
1) Drop the optimization which checks against addr between _stext and
   _etext, as this skips __init functions on most archs.
2) Only put in the symbols for functions (currently CONFIG_KALLSYMS=y
   adds 400k on my laptop: ouch!).
3) Keith asked me to rename it, so as not to get confused with the
   previous patches and kgdb support).  I guess it's too late for this
   one.
4) Use a simple scheme like the mini-oopser did to reduce the symbol
   table size furthur (I got it down to 70k IIRC).
5) See if Kai prefers the compile step inside the Makefile rather than
   in the script.
6) It'd be nice if CONFIG_KALLSYMS=m worked.

If someone wants to champion any or all of these, be my guest, there's
plenty to go around 8)

Cheers,
Rusty.
--
  Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.

Re: kksymoops

[Kai Germaschewski]

On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, Rusty Russell wrote:

> In message <3DD9AB88.4000102@pobox.com> you write:
> > I'm _not_ asking "when", just wondering what the plan is to resuscitate 
> > kksymoops.
> 
> Looks like someone pushed my patch.  Erm, OK, wonder if it works on
> x86? 8)

I think Linus himself did that ;)

> My mental TODO list looked something like this:
> 1) Drop the optimization which checks against addr between _stext and
>    _etext, as this skips __init functions on most archs.

Well, this was put in to avoid all kind of garbage in the traces, so it 
shouldn't just go without replacement. Probably one could even get it 
correct now, using ->module_init() and ->module_core() (just set them for 
the core kernel as well).

> 2) Only put in the symbols for functions (currently CONFIG_KALLSYMS=y
>    adds 400k on my laptop: ouch!).

I'm not to sure about this, I sometimes find it useful to have variables 
on the stack identified correctly.

> 3) Keith asked me to rename it, so as not to get confused with the
>    previous patches and kgdb support).  I guess it's too late for this
>    one.

Nothing wrong with a follow-up patch, is it?

> 5) See if Kai prefers the compile step inside the Makefile rather than
>    in the script.

I'll actually have to look into this. The script is probably fine.

> 6) It'd be nice if CONFIG_KALLSYMS=m worked.

Shouldn't be too hard.

Well, I know talk is cheap. I'll try to find some time to actually look
into some of these issues and come up with patches.

--Kai

Re: kksymoops

[Jeff Garzik]

Jeff Garzik wrote:

> Rusty,
>
> What is the status of kksymoops?



LOL -- look at me eat my words.

I see it's now in Linus's tree -- thanks much!

	Jeff