From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>
Subject: Re: module-placed markers/tracepoints
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:40:59 +1000
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9
Cc: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       akpm@linux-foundation.org
References: <20080717155724.897537670@polymtl.ca> <20080729211543.GB17097@redhat.com> <20080729224115.GA5209@Krystal>
In-Reply-To: <20080729224115.GA5209@Krystal>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200807301140.59745.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1152
Lines: 28

On Wednesday 30 July 2008 08:41:16 Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> Therefore, what would be needed here is to add a synchronize_sched()
> after mod->exit() in module.c or after each tracepoint/marker unregister
> in marker.c/tracepoint.c. However, I'd really prefer to add this to
> module.c since adding this for _every_ unregister will slow down
> processing or multiple probe unregistration too much.
>
> Rusty, am I understanding that correctly ?
>
> Mathieu

Hi Mathieu,

   Yes: stop_machine is merely used to atomically check the module refcount 
for zero and set the state so it can't be incremented again (ie. 
try_module_get will fail).

   So placing a tracepoint or marker in a module does not bump the module 
refcount?  If that's true, then there needs to be some kind of 
remove_markers_from_module() call after module->exit(), which should do the 
synchronize_sched() or whatever, right?

Rusty.
--
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/