Re: [PATCH 07/15] mm: Add ___GFP_NOTRACE
From: Alexei Starovoitov
Date: Mon Mar 02 2015 - 13:12:57 EST
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Tom Zanussi
> On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 09:58 -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:46 AM, Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 11:37 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 2 Mar 2015 10:01:00 -0600
>> >> Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> > Add a gfp flag that allows kmalloc() et al to be used in tracing
>> >> > functions.
>> >> >
>> >> > The problem with using kmalloc for tracing is that the tracing
>> >> > subsystem should be able to trace kmalloc itself, which it can't do
>> >> > directly because of paths like kmalloc()->trace_kmalloc()->kmalloc()
>> >> > or kmalloc()->trace_mm_page_alloc()->kmalloc().
>> >> This part I don't like at all. Why can't the memory be preallocated
>> >> when the hist is created (the echo 'hist:...')?
>> > Yeah, I didn't like it either. My original version did exactly what you
>> > suggest and preallocated an array of entries to 'allocate' from in order
>> > to avoid the problem.
>> > But I wanted to attempt to use the bpf_map directly, which already uses
>> > kmalloc internally. My fallback in case this wouldn't fly, which it
>> > obviously won't, would be to add an option to have the bpf_map code
>> > preallocate a maximum number of entries or pass in a client-owned array
>> > for the purpose. I'll do that if I don't hear any better ideas..
>> Tom, I'm still reading through the patch set.
>> Quick comment for the above.
>> Currently there are two map types: array and hash.
>> array type is pre-allocating all memory at map creation time.
>> hash is allocating on demand.
> OK, so would it make sense to do the same for the hash type, or at least
> add an option that does that?
I'm not sure what would be the meaning of hash map that has all
As I'm reading your cover letter, I agree, we need to find a way
to call kmalloc_notrace-like from tracepoints.
Not sure that patch 8 style of duplicating the functions is clean.
Can we keep kmalloc/kfree as-is and do something like
if (in_tracepoint()) check inside ftrace_raw_kmalloc* ?
so that kmalloc will be traced but calls to kmalloc from inside
tracepoints will be automatically suppressed ?
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/