[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B54A68E.4050409@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 13:21:02 -0500
From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
CC: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, rostedt@...dmis.org,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...utronix.de, andi@...stfloor.org,
roland@...hat.com, rth@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/8] jump label v4 - x86: Introduce generic jump patching
without stop_machine
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Arjan van de Ven (arjan@...radead.org) wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 10:59:30 -0500
>> Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, so in the latest patch, I updated it to use int3 even if
>>> len == 1. :-)
>>>
>>
>>
>> int3 is not making a difference for your case; there is no guarantee
>> that the other processor even sees the "int3 inbetween state" at all;
>> if it's not safe without int3 then it won't be safe with int3 either.
>
> What Masami means is that he updated his patch to use the int3+IPI
> broadcast scheme.
Right.
>
> Therefore, the CPUs not seeing the int3 inbetween state will be forced
> to issue a serializing instruction while the int3 is in place anyway.
By the way, in kprobes, we just use a text_poke() to put int3.
I assume that we'd better send IPI afterward, wouldn't it?
Thank you,
--
Masami Hiramatsu
Software Engineer
Hitachi Computer Products (America), Inc.
Software Solutions Division
e-mail: mhiramat@...hat.com
--
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