[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1259183331.21397.71.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:08:51 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
systemtap <systemtap@...rces.redhat.com>,
DLE <dle-develop@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ibm.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip v5 03/10] kprobes: Introduce kprobes jump
optimization
On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 15:59 -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > I see...so the non-preemptible kernel requirement looks
> > hard to workaround :-s
>
> It's the next challenge I think :-)
> Even though, kprobes itself still work on preemptive kernel,
> so we don't lose any functionality.
>>From kstop_machine, we could search all tasks to see if any are about to
resume in the modified location. If there is, we could either
1) insert a normal kprobe
2) modify the return address of the task to jump to some trampoline to
finish the work and return to the code spot with a direct jump.
#2 is kind of nasty but seems like a fun thing to implement ;-)
-- Steve
--
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