lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/1] x86: fix text_poke
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> This idea has been considered a few years ago at OLS in the tracing BOF
>> if I remember well. The results were this : First, there is no way to
>> guarantee that no code path, nor any return address from any function,
>> interrupt, sleeping thread, will return to the "old" version of the
>> function. Nor is it possible to determine when a quiescent state is
>> reached. Therefore, we couldn't see how we can do the teardown.
>>
>
> Does that matter? The new function is semantically identical to the old
> one, and the old code will remain in place. If there's still users in
> the old function it may take a while for them to get flushed out (and
> won't be traced in the meantime), but you have to expect some missed
> events if you're shoving any kind of dynamic marker into the code. The
> main problem is if there's something still depending on the first 5
> bytes of the function (most likely if there's a loop head somewhere near
> the top of the function).

I think we have to ensure no threads sleeping or being interrupted on
the function when removing new function. How would you check it?

--
Masami Hiramatsu

Software Engineer
Hitachi Computer Products (America) Inc.
Software Solutions Division

e-mail: mhiramat@redhat.com



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-26 01:39    [W:0.284 / U:0.204 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site