[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081006171348.GB9345@Krystal>
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 13:13:48 -0400
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@...stal.dyndns.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] ring-buffer: less locking and only disable
preemption
* Steven Rostedt (rostedt@...dmis.org) wrote:
>
> On Sat, 4 Oct 2008, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> >
> > Or use this code, based on a temporary breakpoint, to do the code
> > patching (part of the -lttng tree). It does not require stop_machine at
> > all and is nmi safe.
> >
>
> When this is supported for all archs, and can be done at all functions
> then I could use it.
>
How about incrementally using this piece of infrastructure when
available on a given architecture ? This way we keep a sub-optimal
fall-back for archs which does not support NMI-safe code patching and
incrementally get the optimal behavior. Otherwise, we would require any
new architecture to implement that up-front, which I doubt is a good
idea.
> I may just have the arch specific code use it, but we'll see.
>
> Also, how good is it at patching 20,000 call sites?
>
Can be done really fast using a hash table, see my previous mail.
Mathieu
> -- Steve
>
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
--
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