From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf0-x242.google.com (mail-pf0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3wthhv4HBpzDr34 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 23:08:15 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-pf0-x242.google.com with SMTP id s66so2865107pfs.2 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 06:08:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 23:08:00 +1000 From: Nicholas Piggin To: Michael Ellerman Cc: "Naveen N. Rao" , Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli , Masami Hiramatsu , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] powerpc/64s: Blacklist system_call() and system_call_common() from kprobes Message-ID: <20170622230800.08369dce@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <87a850s2kd.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> References: <20170622133640.66861cda@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> <87a850s2kd.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 21:07:46 +1000 Michael Ellerman wrote: > Nicholas Piggin writes: > > > On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 00:08:39 +0530 > > "Naveen N. Rao" wrote: > > > >> Convert some of the symbols into private symbols and blacklist > >> system_call_common() and system_call() from kprobes. We can't take a > >> trap at parts of these functions as either MSR_RI is unset or the kernel > >> stack pointer is not yet setup. > >> > >> Reviewed-by: Masami Hiramatsu > >> Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao > > > > I don't have a problem with this bunch of system call labels > > going private. They've never added much for me in profiles. > > > > Reviewed-by: Nicholas Piggin > > > > Semi-related question, why is system_call: where it is? > > Ancient history. > > We used to have: > > bne syscall_dotrace > syscall_dotrace_cont: > cmpldi 0,r0,NR_syscalls > bge- syscall_enosys > > system_call: /* label this so stack traces look sane */ > > > So it was there to hide syscall_dotrace_cont from back traces. > > But we made syscall_dotrace_cont local in 2012 and then removed it > entirely in 2015. > > > Should we move it up to right after the mtmsrd / wrteei instruction? > > (obviously for another patch). It's pretty common to get PMU > > interrupts coming in right after mtmsr and this makes profiles split > > the syscall into two which is annoying. > > Move it wherever makes sense and gives good back traces. I'd be in favour of moving it to right after the interurpt enable. I suppose you'd want a separate patch for that though. But we could put it in this series since we're changing a lot of labels. Thanks, Nick