On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 09:18:48AM +0100, [email protected] wrote:

> diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_probe.h b/kernel/trace/trace_probe.h
> index 842383fbc03b..98b838591edc 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/trace_probe.h
> +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_probe.h
> @@ -274,19 +274,19 @@ struct event_file_link {
>  static inline bool trace_probe_test_flag(struct trace_probe *tp,
>                                        unsigned int flag)
>  {
> -     return !!(tp->event->flags & flag);
> +     return !!(smp_load_acquire(&tp->event->flags) & flag);
>  }
>  
>  static inline void trace_probe_set_flag(struct trace_probe *tp,
>                                       unsigned int flag)
>  {
> -     tp->event->flags |= flag;
> +     smp_store_release(&tp->event->flags, tp->event->flags | flag);
>  }
>  
>  static inline void trace_probe_clear_flag(struct trace_probe *tp,
>                                         unsigned int flag)
>  {
> -     tp->event->flags &= ~flag;
> +     smp_store_release(&tp->event->flags, tp->event->flags & ~flag);
>  }


I _think_ the clear one is superfluous. Is there anything that cares
about stores done before the clear when the flag is found not set?

Also, code like:

static int fentry_dispatcher(struct fprobe *fp, unsigned long entry_ip,
                             unsigned long ret_ip, struct ftrace_regs *fregs,
                             void *entry_data)
{
        struct trace_fprobe *tf = container_of(fp, struct trace_fprobe, fp);
        int ret = 0;

        if (trace_probe_test_flag(&tf->tp, TP_FLAG_TRACE))
                fentry_trace_func(tf, entry_ip, fregs);

#ifdef CONFIG_PERF_EVENTS
        if (trace_probe_test_flag(&tf->tp, TP_FLAG_PROFILE))
                ret = fentry_perf_func(tf, entry_ip, fregs);
#endif
        return ret;
}


Will now have two barriers; where one would suffice, eg.

        flags = smp_load_acquire(&tp->event->flags);

        if (flags & TP_FLAG_TRACE)
                fentry_trace_func(...);

        if (flags & TP_FLAG_PROFILE)
                fentry_perf_func(...);

Should be just fine afaict.


Is this something anybody cares about?

Reply via email to