Re: syscall_regfunc() && TIF_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT

[Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>]

On Sat, 2012-03-31 at 22:45 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/30, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 22:15 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > > But I don't really understand why do you think that "clear" is more
> > > important.
> >
> > They are both important. But as I tend to consider performance when
> > tracing is off as critical, I'm more concerned about that. But both must
> > be fixed, because not reporting traces can confuse a developer.
> 
> Ah, got it, thanks.
> 
> I was going to send the simple patch we discussed, but suddenly I
> realized that I have another question.
> 
> Why do we want to filter out the kernel threads in syscall_regfunc?
> 
> >From cc3b13c1 "tracing: Don't trace kernel thread syscalls"
> 
> 	 then it has no effect to trace the kernel thread calls
> 	 to syscalls in that path.
> 	 Setting the TIF_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT flag is then useless for these.
> 
> OK, but then it doesn't hurt? Or is there another reason why
> TIF_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT is not desirable on kthread?

Right, it doesn't hurt. I was about to say that in a previous email.

> 
> The problem is ____call_usermodehelper() which execs the user-space
> task. This clears PF_KTHREAD (sets ->mm), but obviously if
> sys_tracepoint_refcount != 0 this is too late.
> 
> So what do you think we should do,
> 
> 	- keep this check
> 
> 	- remove it
> 
> 	- remove it in a separate patch

I say this one (remove it in a separate patch). That way if something
breaks we know exactly what did it ;-)

> 
> 	- add the "sync with sys_tracepoint_refcount" hook
> 	  before kernel_execve()
> 
> ?

-- Steve