Re: [PATCH tracing/kprobes 4/7] tracing/kprobes: Add event profilingsupport

[Masami Hiramatsu]

Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > +static int probe_profile_enable(struct ftrace_event_call *call)
> > +{
> > +	struct trace_probe *tp = (struct trace_probe *)call->data;
> > +
> > +	if (atomic_inc_return(&call->profile_count))
> > +		return 0;
> > +
> > +	if (probe_is_return(tp)) {
> > +		tp->rp.handler = kretprobe_profile_func;
> > +		return enable_kretprobe(&tp->rp);
> > +	} else {
> > +		tp->rp.kp.pre_handler = kprobe_profile_func;
> > +		return enable_kprobe(&tp->rp.kp);
> > +	}
> > +}
>
>
>
> May be I misunderstood but it seems that concurrent uses of
> ftrace and perf would really mess up the result, as one would
> overwrite the handler of the other.
>
> Even though it's hard to imagine one using both at the same
> time on the same probe, but still...

Oops, it's my misunderstanding. I thought those are exclusively
enabled each other.

> Is it possible to have two kprobes having the exact same
> properties? (pointing to the same address, having the same
> probe handlers, etc...)
>
> Another solution would be to allow kprobes to have multiple
> handlers.

It could be to have multiple kprobes on same point, but I think
it's waste of the memory and time in this case.

I'd like to have a dispatcher function and flags internally :)

Thank you,

--
Masami Hiramatsu

Software Engineer
Hitachi Computer Products (America), Inc.
Software Solutions Division

e-mail: mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx

--
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/