Re: [PATCH] tracing/profile: Fix profile_disable vs module_unload

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, 2009-08-26 at 12:46 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> Registering tracepoints even when no tracepoint definition is currently
> visible is the intended allowed behavior. Let's say we need to trace
> something happening in module init: if we disallow registering the tp
> callback before the module is initialized, we run in a chicken and egg
> problem.
> 
> So I am trying to figure out the problem source there. Is it that
> modules containing the tp callbacks need to know if those are actually
> connected to an instrumented module ? Or is it that the instrumented
> module needs to know if a probe module is connected to is ? Or is it the
> teardown of the probe module ? No refcount is needed there, because we
> surround the probe call by preempt disable/enable, and we use
> synchronize_sched() before removing the module which contains probe
> callbacks.
> 
> Mathieu-trying-to-figure-out-what-this-whole-thread-is-about :)

OK, so the whole point seems to be that tracepoints have the funny thing
you describe above, whereas the things ftrace makes out of TRACE_EVENT()
get instantiated along with modules.

The reason why I rejected the initial patch (and I still think that that
fix is at the wrong layer) is that I, as a consumer of whatever
TRACE_EVENT() offers, should never need to consider modules.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/