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

[Steven Rostedt]

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hrmm, feel fragile, why don't we check if all a modules tracepoints are
> > > > > unused on unload?
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I don't think it's fragile. We are profiling via a module's
> > > > tracepoint, so we should pin the module, via module_get().
> > > > If event->profile_enable() has been calld, we should make
> > > > sure it's profile_disable() will be called.
> > > 
> > > What I call fragile is that everyone registering a tracepoint 
> > > callback will now apparently need to worry about modules, _that_ 
> > > is fragile.
> > > 
> > > Either make module unload look at tracepoint users, or place the 
> > > try_get_module() in the registration hooks so that regular users 
> > > don't need to worry about it.
> > 
> > The bug found by Li needs to be fixed obviously.
> > 
> > I tend to agree with you that this does not appear to be the best 
> > place to do it: so you suggest to implicitly increase the module 
> > refcount on callback registr instead? (and releasing it when 
> > unregistering)
> > 
> > Same end result, slightly cleaner place to bump the refcount.
> 
> Yes, because the user of tracepoints should never need to care about
> modules.

I also agree with Peter on this.

-- Steve

--
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/