On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 8:41 PM Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 22:21:00 -0700
> Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 9:00 PM Andrii Nakryiko
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 5:52 PM Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 09:40:48
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 22:21:00 -0700
Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 9:00 PM Andrii Nakryiko
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 5:52 PM Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 09:40:48 +0900
> > > Masami Hiramatsu (Google) wrote:
> > >
> > > > OK, for me, this
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 22:21:00 -0700
Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > I just checked our fleet-wide production data for the last 24 hours.
> > Within the kprobe/kretprobe code path (ftrace_trampoline and
> > everything called from it), rcu_is_watching (both calls, see below)
> > cause 0.484% CPU cycles
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 21:00:19 -0700
Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> I just noticed another rcu_is_watching() call, in rethook_try_get(),
> which seems to be a similar and complementary validation check to the
> one we are putting under CONFIG_FTRACE_VALIDATE_RCU_IS_WATCHING option
> in this patch. It
On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 9:00 PM Andrii Nakryiko
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 5:52 PM Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 09:40:48 +0900
> > Masami Hiramatsu (Google) wrote:
> >
> > > OK, for me, this last sentence is preferred for the help message. That
> > > explains
> > >
On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 5:52 PM Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 09:40:48 +0900
> Masami Hiramatsu (Google) wrote:
>
> > OK, for me, this last sentence is preferred for the help message. That
> > explains
> > what this is for.
> >
> > All callbacks that attach to the function
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 09:40:48 +0900
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) wrote:
> OK, for me, this last sentence is preferred for the help message. That
> explains
> what this is for.
>
> All callbacks that attach to the function tracing have some sort
> of protection against recursion.
On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 22:47:33 -0400
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 19:29:46 -0700
> Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 5:38 PM Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 12:09:18 -0400
> > > Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 1 Apr 2024
On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 19:29:46 -0700
Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 5:38 PM Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 12:09:18 -0400
> > Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 20:25:52 +0900
> > > Masami Hiramatsu (Google) wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Masami,
On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 5:38 PM Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 12:09:18 -0400
> Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 20:25:52 +0900
> > Masami Hiramatsu (Google) wrote:
> >
> > > > Masami,
> > > >
> > > > Are you OK with just keeping it set to N.
> > >
> > > OK, if it
On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 12:09:18 -0400
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 20:25:52 +0900
> Masami Hiramatsu (Google) wrote:
>
> > > Masami,
> > >
> > > Are you OK with just keeping it set to N.
> >
> > OK, if it is only for the debugging, I'm OK to set N this.
> >
> > >
> > > We could
On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 20:25:52 +0900
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) wrote:
> > Masami,
> >
> > Are you OK with just keeping it set to N.
>
> OK, if it is only for the debugging, I'm OK to set N this.
>
> >
> > We could have other options like PROVE_LOCKING enable it.
>
> Agreed (but it should
On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 15:01:21 -0400
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 09:16:33 -0700
> Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>
> > > It's no different than lockdep. Test boxes should have it enabled, but
> > > there's no reason to have this enabled in a production system.
> > >
> >
> > I tend to
On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 11:58 AM Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 09:16:33 -0700
> Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>
> > > It's no different than lockdep. Test boxes should have it enabled, but
> > > there's no reason to have this enabled in a production system.
> > >
> >
> > I tend to agree
On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 09:16:33 -0700
Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > It's no different than lockdep. Test boxes should have it enabled, but
> > there's no reason to have this enabled in a production system.
> >
>
> I tend to agree with Steven here (which is why I sent this patch as it
> is), but I'm
On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 3:11 PM Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 11:38:48 +0900
> Masami Hiramatsu (Google) wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 09:03:23 -0700
> > Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> >
> > > Introduce CONFIG_FTRACE_VALIDATE_RCU_IS_WATCHING config option to
> > > control whether
On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 11:38:48 +0900
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 09:03:23 -0700
> Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>
> > Introduce CONFIG_FTRACE_VALIDATE_RCU_IS_WATCHING config option to
> > control whether ftrace low-level code performs additional
> > rcu_is_watching()-based
On Sun, Mar 24, 2024 at 7:38 PM Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 09:03:23 -0700
> Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>
> > Introduce CONFIG_FTRACE_VALIDATE_RCU_IS_WATCHING config option to
> > control whether ftrace low-level code performs additional
> > rcu_is_watching()-based validation
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 09:03:23 -0700
Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> Introduce CONFIG_FTRACE_VALIDATE_RCU_IS_WATCHING config option to
> control whether ftrace low-level code performs additional
> rcu_is_watching()-based validation logic in an attempt to catch noinstr
> violations.
>
> This check is
19 matches
Mail list logo