[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070413121347.GA30280@in.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:43:47 +0530
From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>,
Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/13] maps: pagemap, kpagemap, and related cleanups
On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 12:50:20PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> >On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 12:18:56 +1000 Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>I guess one could generate an answer to the static question with
> >>>systemtap,
> >>>by accumulating running counts across the application lifetime and then
> >>>snapshotting them. Sounds hard though.
> >>
> >>Can't you just traverse arbitrary kernel data structures at a given point
> >>in time, exactly like the /proc/ call is doing?
> >
> >
> >Do a full pagetable walk, with all the associated locking from within
> >a systemtap script? I'd be surprised. Maybe if it's mostly hand-coded
> >in C, perhaps.
>
> It looks like you can traverse arbitrary data structures, yes.
>
> It definitely seems like you can use some kernel functions, but the
> ones I saw may just be systemtap facilities. But what is so surprising
> about being able to call a kernel function when running in kernel
> context? Perhaps there is some fundamental limitation of kprobes that
> I don't understand.
The main requirement for kprobes handlers is that they can't sleep. You
could definitely call a kernel function from kprobe handlers as long as
the function doesn't sleep.
Ananth
-
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