lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] tracing/function-return-tracer: don't trace kfree while it frees the return stack

On Sun, 23 Nov 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > note that we also need to keep gcc from reordering things here (no
> > > matter how unlikely in this particular case).
> >
> > I first thought that too, but thinking about it, if gcc does do that, then
> > it will break the logic for a correct C program.
> >
> > t is passed in as a pointer, then it modifies the contents of t
> > (which could be a global pointer), then it calls a external
> > function, that might also reference the global pointer.
> >
> > This means that if it were to reorder the two, it would break C,
> > because the compiler can not assume that the called function will
> > read the global pointer either.
> >
> > In other words, the compiler should not need to worry about SMP or
> > modifications done by interrupts or other threads. But the compiler
> > should always preserve the order that is assumed by a single
> > context.
>
> Correct, but this assumes that kfree is a C function. Which it might
> not necessarily be: it could be optimized via an inline in certain
> cases, etc. It's best to document such cases explicitly.

Yeah, I thought about kfree being optimized out somehow, but thinking
about what kfree does, it seems difficult to imagine how that could
happen.

>
> In any case, the real solution is what i suggested in the previous
> mail, to do the freeing from the task-struct freeing path in
> kernel/fork.c:free_task() - that has other advantages as well.

Yeah, but sometimes it's good to talk about quirks of a compiler, even on
obsoleted situations ;-)

-- Steve



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-11-23 20:51    [W:0.045 / U:0.224 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site