* Masami Hiramatsu <mhira...@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 08:53:32 +0200
> Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > * Masami Hiramatsu <mhira...@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > > > So this is something I missed while the original code was merged, but
> > > > the concept
> > > > looks a bit weird: why do we do any "allocation" while a handler is
> > > > executing?
> > > >
> > > > That's fundamentally fragile. What's the maximum number of parallel
> > > > 'kretprobe_instance' required per kretprobe - one per CPU?
> > >
> > > It depends on the place where we put the probe. If the probed function
> > > will be
> > > blocked (yield to other tasks), then we need a same number of threads on
> > > the system which can invoke the function. So, ultimately, it is same
> > > as function_graph tracer, we need it for each thread.
> >
> > So then put it into task_struct (assuming there's no
> > kretprobe-inside-kretprobe
> > nesting allowed).
>
> No, that is possible to put several kretprobes on same thread, e.g.
> the func1() is called from func2(), user can put kretprobes for each
> function at same time.
> So the possible solution is to allocate new return-stack for each task_struct,
> and that is what the function-graph tracer did.
>
> Anyway, I'm considering to integrate kretprobe_instance with the ret_stack.
> It will increase memory usage for kretprobes, but can provide safer way
> to allocate kretprobe_instance.
Ok, that sounds good to me.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
