DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=HGPg1VUOTUnU8LErWy/mlluSy08A7NNv3ZSWeIctVEDkOPS+U7kkq2Y1Y+3QdKmw2arMeVv0bvztoyBNgnNP7q5vojDWQshrY/2k3mP1Zo5lN/5rwaeleQxF+cZDuACR1ympQsFeNQ59ZPNFJmEqvQZW+SoAWygUte90JbikJ/Y=
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86: add kprobe-booster to X86_64
From: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@redhat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
       Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@in.ibm.com>,
       Jim Keniston <jkenisto@us.ibm.com>, Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>,
       Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>, prasanna@in.ibm.com,
       anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com, davem@davemloft.net,
       systemtap-ml <systemtap@sources.redhat.com>,
       LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <4768A18F.4040406@redhat.com>
References: <1197930464.23402.112.camel@brick>
	 <20071218112936.GE9002@elte.hu> <1197978160.7734.31.camel@brick>
	 <4767D02C.6030704@redhat.com> <1198031400.7734.41.camel@brick>
	 <4768A18F.4040406@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:21:34 -0800
Message-Id: <1198041694.10357.2.camel@brick>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2049
Lines: 49

On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 23:43 -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> Harvey Harrison wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 08:50 -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> >> Hi Harvey,
> >>
> >> Thank you for cleaning this up.
> >>
> >> Harvey Harrison wrote:
> >>> Subject: [PATCH] x86: kprobes leftover cleanups
> >>>
> >>> Eliminate __always_inline, all of these static functions are
> >>> only called once.  Minor whitespace cleanup.  Eliminate one
> >>> supefluous return at end of void function.  Reverse sense of
> >>> #ifndef to be #ifdef to show the case only affects X86_32.
> >> Unfortunately, to prevent kprobe recursive call, all functions which
> >> is called from kprobes must be inlined or have __kprobes.
> >> If __always_inline macro still work, I prefer to use it. If not,
> >> it must have a __kprobe attribute like as below.
> > 
> > I thought all static functions that were only called once were
> > automatically inlined these days?  Otherwise __always_inline and
> > inline are exactly the same in the kernel.
> 
> Yes, it will be (not obviously) inlined, currently.
> However, IMHO, it is not fail-safe coding.
> 

Fair enough, you seem to have a deeper understanding of the code than
I, I'd suggest __kprobes as a better annotation for this purpose though.

> I think we might better take care of someone who will modify the code
> in the future. If they call those functions from other place,
> it will not be inlined, and may be placed out of .kprobes.text.
> In that case, we can not prevent inserting kprobes in those functions.
> 
> Thus, I recommend you to add __kprobes on those functions.
> That indicates which functions will be used by kprobes and gives
> hints how to write functions which will be called from kprobes.
> (And also, it simplifies coding rule.)

Patch forthcoming.

Harvey

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/