[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100118110406.GC5256@nowhere>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 12:04:07 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Joshua Pincus <joshua.pincus@...il.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"K.Prasad" <prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, peterz@...radead.org,
paulus@...ba.org, acme@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: HW breakpoints perf_events request
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 10:03:27AM -0800, Joshua Pincus wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 1:23 AM, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
> >> We would like to avoid using ptrace at all costs.
> >> It requires us to have a parent thread running
> >> which monitors all the others. It's not clear that
> >> the wait() call by the parent doesn't mask a barrage
> >> of signals from various threads and the performance
> >
> > mask? It'll report them. You expect to have so
> > many signals that this would be a problem?
>
> Yes. We expect to see a zillion of them.
I don't quite understand what signals are masked here,
actually I'm not sure what is the true problem with ptrace.
Is it because a breakpoint in a thread is going to stop
all thread in the process until the parent handles the
signal?
Anyway, although I first suggested extending perf, with
more thoughts I now agree that perf should keep doing what
it does currently (profiling) and not trying to become an
messy mix of a profiler, debugger, etc...
This is not its role.
But it can certainly be used by a debugging facility.
What about extending ptrace to support a new type of
breakpoint debugging interface?
--
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