This is the mail archive of the systemtap@sourceware.org mailing list for the systemtap project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
(2014/03/25 4:35), Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 20:59:53 +0900 > Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com> wrote: > >> There is no need to prohibit probing on the functions >> used in preparation phase. Those are safely probed because >> those are not invoked from breakpoint/fault/debug handlers, >> there is no chance to cause recursive exceptions. >> >> Following functions are now removed from the kprobes blacklist. >> can_boost >> can_probe >> can_optimize >> is_IF_modifier >> __copy_instruction >> copy_optimized_instructions >> arch_copy_kprobe >> arch_prepare_kprobe >> arch_arm_kprobe >> arch_disarm_kprobe >> arch_remove_kprobe > > Is there any possibility that the arm and disarm could cause issues if > we have a probe in the middle of setting it? > > I guess not, but I just wanted to ask, as your test only tested the > start of function and not the middle of it. OK, I've tested it by attached script which adds probes on every address of the target function and run a testcase(register/unregister other probes), and found no problem. :) Thank you, -- Masami HIRAMATSU IT Management Research Dept. Linux Technology Center Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com
Attachment:
kprobes_test.sh
Description: Text document
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |