Re: [PATCH -tip v5 03/10] kprobes: Introduce kprobes jump optimization

[Masami Hiramatsu]

Hi Frederic,

Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 06:21:41PM -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>> +config OPTPROBES
>> +	bool "Kprobes jump optimization support (EXPERIMENTAL)"
>> +	default y
>> +	depends on KPROBES
>> +	depends on !PREEMPT
> 
> 
> Why does it depends on !PREEMPT?

Oh, because it has not supported preemptive kernel yet.
(I'd like to tell you why in another mail)

>> @@ -301,6 +302,31 @@ void __kprobes free_insn_slot(kprobe_opcode_t * slot, int dirty)
>>  	__free_insn_slot(&kprobe_insn_slots, slot, dirty);
>>  	mutex_unlock(&kprobe_insn_mutex);
>>  }
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_OPTPROBES
>> +/* For optimized_kprobe buffer */
>> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(kprobe_optinsn_mutex); /* Protects kprobe_optinsn_slots */
>> +static struct kprobe_insn_cache kprobe_optinsn_slots = {
>> +	.pages = LIST_HEAD_INIT(kprobe_optinsn_slots.pages),
>> +	/* .insn_size is initialized later */
>> +	.nr_garbage = 0,
>> +};
>> +/* Get a slot for optimized_kprobe buffer */
>> +kprobe_opcode_t __kprobes *get_optinsn_slot(void)
>> +{
>> +	kprobe_opcode_t *ret = NULL;
>> +	mutex_lock(&kprobe_optinsn_mutex);
>> +	ret = __get_insn_slot(&kprobe_optinsn_slots);
>> +	mutex_unlock(&kprobe_optinsn_mutex);
>> +	return ret;
>> +}
> 
> 
> 
> Just a small nano-neat: could you add a line between variable
> declarations and the rest? And also just before the return?
> It makes the code a bit easier to review.

Sure :-)

>> +static void kprobe_optimizer(struct work_struct *work);
>> +static DECLARE_DELAYED_WORK(optimizing_work, kprobe_optimizer);
>> +#define OPTIMIZE_DELAY 5
>> +
>> +/* Kprobe jump optimizer */
>> +static __kprobes void kprobe_optimizer(struct work_struct *work)
>> +{
>> +	struct optimized_kprobe *op, *tmp;
>> +
>> +	/* Lock modules while optimizing kprobes */
>> +	mutex_lock(&module_mutex);
>> +	mutex_lock(&kprobe_mutex);
>> +	if (kprobes_all_disarmed)
>> +		goto end;
>> +
>> +	/* Wait quiesence period for ensuring all interrupts are done */
>> +	synchronize_sched();
> 
> 
> 
> It's not clear to me why you are doing that.
> Is this waiting for pending int 3 kprobes handlers
> to complete? If so, why, and what does that prevent?
> 
> Also, why is it a delayed work? I'm not sure what we are
> waiting for here.
[...]
> Again, I think this dance with live patching protected
> by int 3 only, which patching is in turn a necessary
> stage before, is a complicated sequence that could be
> simplified by choosing only one patching in stop_machine()
> time.

There is a reason why we have to wait here and it's excuse
why it hasn't supported preemption yet too, I'll tell you
in next mail :-)

>> +
>> +	get_online_cpus();	/* Use online_cpus while optimizing */
> 
> 
> 
> And this comment doesn't tell us much what this brings us.
> The changelog tells it stands to avoid a text_mutex deadlock.
> I'm not sure why we would deadlock without it.

As Mathieu and I discussed on LKML (http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/11/21/187)
text_mutex will be locked on the way of cpu-hotplug.
Since kprobes locks text_mutex too and stop_machine() refers online_cpus,
it will cause a dead-lock. So, I decided to use get_online_cpus() to
locking hotplug while optimizing/unoptimizng.

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/