Re: [PATCH] arm: ftrace: Adds support for CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS

From: Abel Vesa <abelvesa@gmail.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Cc: Abel Vesa <abelvesa@linux.com>,
	linux@armlinux.org.uk, rostedt@goodmis.org, mingo@redhat.com,
	viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, jjhiblot@traphandler.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, robin.murphy@arm.com,
	zhouchengming1@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: ftrace: Adds support for CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 02:19:57 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170112001957.GA5458@nuc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170110155112.GB14894@pathway.suse.cz>

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 04:51:12PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Thu 2016-12-08 22:46:55, Abel Vesa wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 09:46:35PM +0000, Abel Vesa wrote:
> > > From: Jean-Jacques Hiblot <jjhiblot@traphandler.com>
> > > 
> > > From: Jean-Jacques Hiblot <jjhiblot@traphandler.com>
> > 
> > >From statement twice in the commit message. Will resend.
> > > 
> > > The DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS configuration makes it possible for a ftrace
> > > operation to specify if registers need to saved/restored by the ftrace handler.
> > > This is needed by kgraft and possibly other ftrace-based tools, and the ARM
> > > architecture is currently lacking this feature. It would also be the first step
> > > to support the "Kprobes-on-ftrace" optimization on ARM.
> > > 
> > > This patch introduces a new ftrace handler that stores the registers on the
> > > stack before calling the next stage. The registers are restored from the stack
> > > before going back to the instrumented function.
> > > 
> > > A side-effect of this patch is to activate the support for ftrace_modify_call()
> > > as it defines ARCH_SUPPORTS_FTRACE_OPS for the ARM architecture
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Jean-Jacques Hiblot <jjhiblot@traphandler.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Abel Vesa <abelvesa@linux.com>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/arm/Kconfig               |  2 ++
> > >  arch/arm/include/asm/ftrace.h  |  4 +++
> > >  arch/arm/kernel/entry-ftrace.S | 78 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  arch/arm/kernel/ftrace.c       | 33 ++++++++++++++++++
> > >  4 files changed, 117 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig
> > > index b5d529f..87f1a9f 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm/Kconfig
> > > +++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig
> > > @@ -50,6 +50,7 @@ config ARM
> > >  	select HAVE_DMA_API_DEBUG
> > >  	select HAVE_DMA_CONTIGUOUS if MMU
> > >  	select HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE if (!XIP_KERNEL) && !CPU_ENDIAN_BE32 && MMU
> > > +	select HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS if HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE
> > >  	select HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS if (CPU_V6 || CPU_V6K || CPU_V7) && MMU
> > >  	select HAVE_EXIT_THREAD
> > >  	select HAVE_FTRACE_MCOUNT_RECORD if (!XIP_KERNEL)
> > > @@ -90,6 +91,7 @@ config ARM
> > >  	select PERF_USE_VMALLOC
> > >  	select RTC_LIB
> > >  	select SYS_SUPPORTS_APM_EMULATION
> > > +	select FRAME_POINTER if DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS && FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER
Hi Petr,
> 
> FRAME_POINTER is not for free. It takes space on the stack. Also there
> is a performance penalty. Do we really need to depend on it? If so,
> it might be worth a note in the commit message.

I was trying to create my own patch when I found this work done by 
Jean-Jacques, so I haven't looked specifically for the FRAME_POINTER 
part. I looked now at it and you seem to be right, FRAME_POINTER is 
not needed. 

I will get rid of the FRAME_POINTER part, change the authorship and
send it again in the following days.
>
> I made only a quick look at the patch. It looks reasonable. But I do
> not have enough knowledge about the arm architecture, assembly, and
> ftrace-specifics. Also I cannot test it easily. So issues might
> be hidden to my eyes.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Petr
Thanks,
Abel