On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 11:20:37 +0900
Namhyung Kim <namhy...@kernel.org> wrote:
> > Actually, if this is called after event_trace_del_tracer(), the tr is
> > already invisible and nothing new should change.
>
> I don't follow. After event_trace_del_tracer(), the tr is invisible
> from the probe of event tracing but still is visible from the probe of
> function tracing, right?
Well, nothing should be able to get to the set_ftrace_filter file when
there. Because of the tr->ref count. But keeping the lock is safer
regardless, and it's not a fast path, so the extra overhead if the lock
isn't needed is no big deal.
>
> >
> > Make a wrapper around clear_ftrace_pids() and call that instead. We
> > don't even need to take a lock, but as I see there's a lockdep test for
> > ftrace_lock, we should still do so just to be safe.
>
> Right, that's why I call ftrace_pid_reset() instead of
> clear_ftrace_pids(). So do you prefer adding a new wrapper like below
> rather than reusing ftrace_pid_reset() with a new argument?
Yes, because the bool passed in is confusing. A separate function like
below is more descriptive.
-- Steve
>
> Thanks,
> Namhyung
>
>
> >
> > void ftrace_clear_pids(struct trace_array *tr)
> > {
> > mutex_lock(&ftrace_lock);
> >
> > clear_ftrace_pids(tr);
> >
> > mutex_unlock(&ftrace_lock);
> > }
