From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Michael Jeanson <mjeanson@efficios.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
Jordan Rife <jrife@google.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 2/3] tracing: Introduce tracepoint_is_syscall()
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2024 09:36:43 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <459b9e7d-be9b-41d8-8ae3-4aa707def641@efficios.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEf4BzbeE6n7E6K8_dhZ26ZHoVsz8V9mUSxm3CYzz2npmdpbiQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 2024-10-27 21:23, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2024 at 7:19 AM Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> wrote:
[...]
>>>> include/linux/tracepoint-defs.h | 2 ++
>>>> include/linux/tracepoint.h | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> include/trace/define_trace.h | 2 +-
>>>> 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/tracepoint-defs.h b/include/linux/tracepoint-defs.h
>>>> index 967c08d9da84..53119e074c87 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/tracepoint-defs.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/tracepoint-defs.h
>>>> @@ -32,6 +32,8 @@ struct tracepoint_func {
>>>> struct tracepoint_ext {
>>>> int (*regfunc)(void);
>>>> void (*unregfunc)(void);
>>>> + /* Flags. */
>>>> + unsigned int syscall:1;
>>>
>>> I wonder if we should call it "sleepable" instead? For this patch set
>>> do we really care if it's a system call or not? It's really if the
>>> tracepoint is sleepable or not that's the issue. System calls are just
>>> one user of it, there may be more in the future, and the changes to BPF
>>> will still be needed.
>>
>> I agree with this. Even if currently we restrict only syscall events
>> can be sleep, "tracepoint_is_syscall()" requires to add comment to
>> explain why on all call sites e.g.
>>
>
> +1 to naming this "sleepable" (or at least "faultable"). BPF world
> uses "sleepable BPF" terminology for BPF programs and attachment hooks
> that can take page fault (and wait/sleep waiting for those to be
> handled), so this would be consistent with that. Also, from BPF
> standpoint this will be advertised as attaching to sleepable
> tracepoints regardless, so "syscall" terminology is too specific and
> misleading, because while current set of tracepoints are
> syscall-specific, the important part is taking page fault, no tracing
> syscalls.
+1 for "faultable".
Thanks,
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
https://www.efficios.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-10-28 13:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-10-26 15:46 [RFC PATCH v3 1/3] tracing: Introduce tracepoint extended structure Mathieu Desnoyers
2024-10-26 15:46 ` [RFC PATCH v3 2/3] tracing: Introduce tracepoint_is_syscall() Mathieu Desnoyers
2024-10-27 0:08 ` Steven Rostedt
2024-10-27 12:30 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2024-10-28 5:06 ` Steven Rostedt
2024-10-28 13:35 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2024-10-27 14:19 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2024-10-28 1:23 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-10-28 13:36 ` Mathieu Desnoyers [this message]
2024-10-26 15:46 ` [RFC PATCH v3 3/3] tracing: Fix syscall tracepoint use-after-free Mathieu Desnoyers
2024-10-28 1:22 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-10-28 19:19 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2024-10-31 15:43 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2024-10-31 16:35 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-10-28 1:22 ` [RFC PATCH v3 1/3] tracing: Introduce tracepoint extended structure Andrii Nakryiko
2024-10-28 19:13 ` 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=459b9e7d-be9b-41d8-8ae3-4aa707def641@efficios.com \
--to=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=jrife@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mjeanson@efficios.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=yhs@fb.com \
/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