[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1263561389.4244.410.camel@laptop>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 14:16:29 +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 18:38 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> [2010-01-15 11:33:27]:
>
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> >
>
> Some of the threads could be executing in the vicinity of the
> breakpoint when it is getting inserted or deleted. Wont we need to
> stop/quiesce those threads?
The easy answer it so use kstopmachine to patch the code, the slightly
more complex would be using something like:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/1/12/300
--
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