On 08/01, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Thu, 2013-08-01 at 16:33 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > On 08/01, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 2013-08-01 at 15:34 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > > > > > > > __unregister_trace_probe(tp); > > > > > list_del(&tp->list) > > > > > unregister_probe_event(tp) <-- fails! > > > > > free_trace_probe(tp) > > > > > > > > Yes. But again, this doesn't explain why unregister_probe_event()-> > > > > __trace_remove_event_call() can't simply proceed and > > > > do ftrace_event_enable_disable() + remove_event_from_tracers(). > > > > > > The problem is with the soft disable. > > > > Exactly! This is another (also unlikely) race we need to prevent. > > > > Is there a race even with these patches?
Sorry for confusion, > I don't see one. Neither me, but only with these changes. I meant that this is another reason why trace_remove_event_call() should fail and the caller should obviously abort in this case. > Or are you just saying that these patches fix that case too? Yes, sorry. Oleg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
