[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1237002455.25062.83.camel@pasglop>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 14:47:35 +1100
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 02/11] x86 architecture implementation of Hardware
Breakpoint interfaces
On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 23:11 +0530, K.Prasad wrote:
> With FCFS or an allocation mechanism without the (un)installed()
> callbacks we'd lose the ability to record requests and service them
> later when registers become availabile.
>
> Say when (un)installed() callbacks are implemented for the proposed
> ftrace-plugin to trace kernel symbols, they can automatically stop/start
> tracing as and when registers become (un)available. This can be helpful when
> we wish to profile memory access over a kernel variable for a long duration
> (where small loss of tracing data can be tolerated), while the system would
> permit simultaneous user-space access (say a GDB session using 'hbreak').
>
> Are we fine with disallowing such usage, which if done will let the requester
> of the breakpoint register 'poll' periodically to check availability.
Is that such a big deal ? Can't we just have the kernel degrade to
classic SW breakpoints ?
Smells like overengineering to me ...
Ben.
--
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