[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070323182248.GA32364@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 14:22:48 -0400
From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
To: "Stone, Joshua I" <joshua.i.stone@...el.com>
Cc: "Keshavamurthy, Anil S" <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Prasanna S Panchamukhi <prasanna@...ibm.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
SystemTAP <systemtap@...rces.redhat.com>,
Satoshi Oshima <soshima@...hat.com>,
Hideo Aoki <haoki@...hat.com>,
Yumiko Sugita <yumiko.sugita.yf@...achi.com>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>, hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][Patch 1/4] kprobe fast unregistration
Hi -
Keshavamurthy, Anil S wrote:
> I agree with Christoph that the interface is horrible and error prone.
Really? What possible problems can occur? The worst that occurs to
me is that if someone forgets to call the commit function, the kprobes
will still be disabled, but memory won't be recycled for a while. Is
this really so bad, considering that a kprobe_unregister is to imply a
commit? Maybe if kprobe_register can also implied a commit, we can
bound the conceivable memory leak.
Would it be possible to allay even that concern with an automated
deferred/periodic commit?
- FChE
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists