[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <863e9df20805220516x7e6cd4ecvc4e88e2d4ec62ed@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 17:46:19 +0530
From: "Abhishek Sagar" <sagar.abhishek@...il.com>
To: "Srinivasa DS" <srinivasa@...ibm.com>
Cc: "Jim Keniston" <jkenisto@...ibm.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Ananth Mavinakayanahalli" <ananth@...ibm.com>,
"Masami Hiramatsu" <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
"Srikar Dronamraju" <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] To improve kretprobe scalability
On 5/22/08, Srinivasa DS <srinivasa@...ibm.com> wrote:
> There were ideas of storing kretprobe instances in task_struct to get rid
> of locking, but that would require extending task_struct
Wouldn't chaining of return instances in task_struct only increase its
size by sizeof(struct list_head) bytes?
> and catching each task exit, destroying its kretprobe instances.
Which is kind of stil done by (...or at least we have a precendent of
this issue's awareness) kprobe_flush_task().
> This makes code more invasive.
Ok.
> But in this implementation (global hash table, hashed by task), we
> lock only the current task's hash bucket and hence we have fairly low
> contention.
I may be underestimating the complexity of having returns instances
associated with current task_struct, but anything else seems counter
intuitive. There might be more possibilites to exploit the fact that
functions instances are per-task.
A step in the right direction nevertheless :-)
> Thanks
> Srinivasa DS
--
Regards,
Abhishek Sagar
--
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