[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100119180610.GA11005@nowhere>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 19:06:12 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ibm.com>
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, ananth@...ibm.com,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
utrace-devel <utrace-devel@...hat.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
Maneesh Soni <maneesh@...ibm.com>,
Mark Wielaard <mjw@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/7] User Space Breakpoint Assistance Layer (UBP)
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 09:47:45AM -0800, Jim Keniston wrote:
> > Do you have plans for a variant
> > that's completely in userspace?
>
> I don't know of any such plans, but I'd be interested to read more of
> your thoughts here. As I understand it, you've suggested replacing the
> probed instruction with a jump into an instrumentation vma (the XOL
> area, or something similar). Masami has demonstrated -- through his
> djprobes enhancement to kprobes -- that this can be done for many x86
> instructions.
>
> What does the code in the jumped-to vma do? Is the instrumentation code
> that corresponds to the uprobe handlers encoded in an ad hoc .so?
Once the instrumentation is requested by a process that is not the
instrumented one, this looks impossible to set a uprobe without a
minimal voluntary collaboration from the instrumented process
(events sent through IPC or whatever). So that looks too limited,
this is not anymore a true dynamic uprobe.
--
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