[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1263551607.4244.379.camel@laptop>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:33:27 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ibm.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
utrace-devel <utrace-devel@...hat.com>,
Mark Wielaard <mjw@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
Maneesh Soni <maneesh@...ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 4/7] Uprobes Implementation
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 15:56 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> Or there could be two threads that could be racing to
> insert/delete a breakpoint. These synchronization issues are all handled
> by the Uprobes layer.
Shouldn't be hard to put that in the ubp layer, right?
> Uprobes layer would need to be notified of process life-time events
> like fork/clone/exec/exit.
No so much the process lifetimes as the vma life times are interesting,
placing a hook in the vm code to track that isn't too hard,
> It also needs to know
> - when a breakpoint is hit
> - stop and resume a thread.
A simple hook in the trap code is done quickly enough, and no reason to
stop the thread, its not going anywhere when it traps.
--
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