Re: [PATCH] pstore/ftrace: Convert to its own enable/disable debugfsknob

[Anton Vorontsov]

On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 08:47:22PM -0700, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
[...]
> -void notrace pstore_ftrace_call(unsigned long ip, unsigned long parent_ip)
> +static void notrace pstore_ftrace_call(unsigned long ip,
> +				       unsigned long parent_ip)
>  {
> +	unsigned long flags;
>  	struct pstore_ftrace_record rec = {};
>  
> +	if (unlikely(!ftrace_enabled))
> +		return;
>  	if (unlikely(oops_in_progress))
>  		return;
>  
> +	local_irq_save(flags);
> +
>  	rec.ip = ip;
>  	rec.parent_ip = parent_ip;
>  	pstore_ftrace_encode_cpu(&rec, raw_smp_processor_id());
>  	psinfo->write_buf(PSTORE_TYPE_FTRACE, 0, NULL, 0, (void *)&rec,
>  			  sizeof(rec), psinfo);

Btw, here we might be running w/o recurse protection, and that helped
to find a bug in the persistent ram module.

The bug was quite subtle: it only happened if pstore tracing was
enabled before any other tracers. And it magically disappeared
otherwise.

This is because ftrace_ops_list_func() does its own recurse protection,
but ftrace_ops_list_func() is only used when there are more than
one 'struct ops' registered, otherwise ->func is called directly.

Of course, if I specify FL_GLOBAL/FL_CONTROL flag for the tracer,
then it will not try to call the func directly. But then there is
a question: do we really want to set these flags if we yet don't
want removable modules?

Or, setting at least FL_CONTROL would be a good idea anyway, since
it will then react to ftrace_function_local_{enable,disable}()?

Thanks,

-- 
Anton Vorontsov
Email: cbouatmailru@xxxxxxxxx
--
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/