[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091124032008.GD6752@nowhere>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 04:20:09 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ibm.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Anders Kaseorg <andersk@...lice.com>,
Tim Abbott <tabbott@...lice.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
systemtap <systemtap@...rces.redhat.com>,
DLE <dle-develop@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip v5 00/10] kprobes: Kprobes jump optimization
support
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 03:03:19AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 06:21:16PM -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > When the optimized-kprobe is hit before optimization, its handler
> > changes IP(instruction pointer) to copied code and exits. So, the
> > instructions which were copied to detour buffer are executed on the detour
> > buffer.
>
>
>
> Hm, why is it playing such hybrid game there?
> If I understand well, we have executed int 3, executed the
> handler and we jump back to the detour buffer?
>
I got it, I think. We have instructions to patch. And the above
turn this area into dead code, safe to patch.
But still, stop_machine() seem to make it not necessary anymore.
--
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