[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0903101017040.2962-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 10:19:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc: prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 01/11] Introducing generic hardware breakpoint handler
interfaces
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com <prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>
> > +static u8 tprio[HB_NUM]; /* Thread bp max priorities */
> > +LIST_HEAD(kernel_bps); /* Kernel breakpoint list */
> > +static LIST_HEAD(thread_list); /* thread_hw_breakpoint list */
> > +DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct cpu_hw_breakpoint, cpu_bp);
If nobody minds, I'll answer some of these questions on Prasad's behalf
because they address parts of the code that were written before he took
over the project.
> hm, why do we need the whole 'priority' mechanism? It seems very
> over-designed to me.
This was done at Roland McGrath's express request. We should see what
he has to say about it.
> The likelyhood of both user-space and kernel-space to use
> hw-breakpoints is very low to begin with. And if they use them,
> the likelyhood of there being more than 4 debugregs required in
> the same context is even lower.
Not all architectures have 4 debug registers. Most have only one.
> If that happens we shouldnt try to be too smart about them -
> just override user-space ones with kernel space ones and that's
> it. No explicit priorities are needed.
Roland really did not want it done this way.
Alan Stern
--
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