[PATCH] arm64: ftrace: stop using kstop_machine to enable/disable tracing
huawei.libin at huawei.com
Thu Dec 3 01:39:56 PST 2015
on 2015/12/2 21:16, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 12:36:54PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 03:50:09PM +0800, Li Bin wrote:
>>> On arm64, kstop_machine which is hugely disruptive to a running
>>> system is not needed to convert nops to ftrace calls or back,
>>> because that modifed code is a single 32bit instructions which
>>> is impossible to cross cache (or page) boundaries, and the used str
>>> instruction is single-copy atomic.
>> This commit message is misleading, since the single-copy atomicity
>> guarantees don't apply to the instruction-side. Instead, the architecture
>> calls out a handful of safe instructions in "Concurrent modification and
>> execution of instructions".
>> Now, those safe instructions *do* include NOP, B and BL, so that should
>> be sufficient for ftrace provided that we don't patch condition codes
>> (and I don't think we do).
> Thinking about this some more, you also need to fix the validate=1 case
> in ftrace_modify_code so that it can run outside of stop_machine. We
> currently rely on that to deal with concurrent modifications (e.g.
> module unloading).
I'm not sure it is really a problem, but on x86, which using breakpoints method,
add_break() that run outside of stop_machine also has similar code.
static int add_break(unsigned long ip, const char *old)
unsigned char replaced[MCOUNT_INSN_SIZE];
unsigned char brk = BREAKPOINT_INSTRUCTION;
if (probe_kernel_read(replaced, (void *)ip, MCOUNT_INSN_SIZE))
/* Make sure it is what we expect it to be */
if (memcmp(replaced, old, MCOUNT_INSN_SIZE) != 0)
return ftrace_write(ip, &brk, 1);
Or I misunderstand what you mean?
More information about the linux-arm-kernel