Re: syscall_regfunc() && TIF_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT
From: Steven Rostedt
Date: Sat Mar 31 2012 - 17:37:43 EST
On Sat, 2012-03-31 at 22:45 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/30, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 22:15 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > But I don't really understand why do you think that "clear" is more
> > > important.
> > They are both important. But as I tend to consider performance when
> > tracing is off as critical, I'm more concerned about that. But both must
> > be fixed, because not reporting traces can confuse a developer.
> Ah, got it, thanks.
> I was going to send the simple patch we discussed, but suddenly I
> realized that I have another question.
> Why do we want to filter out the kernel threads in syscall_regfunc?
> >From cc3b13c1 "tracing: Don't trace kernel thread syscalls"
> then it has no effect to trace the kernel thread calls
> to syscalls in that path.
> Setting the TIF_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT flag is then useless for these.
> OK, but then it doesn't hurt? Or is there another reason why
> TIF_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT is not desirable on kthread?
Right, it doesn't hurt. I was about to say that in a previous email.
> The problem is ____call_usermodehelper() which execs the user-space
> task. This clears PF_KTHREAD (sets ->mm), but obviously if
> sys_tracepoint_refcount != 0 this is too late.
> So what do you think we should do,
> - keep this check
> - remove it
> - remove it in a separate patch
I say this one (remove it in a separate patch). That way if something
breaks we know exactly what did it ;-)
> - add the "sync with sys_tracepoint_refcount" hook
> before kernel_execve()
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/