[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100120104541.GB30109@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:15:41 +0530
From: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc: Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ibm.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
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>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.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)
> >
> >What does the code in the jumped-to vma do?
>
> 1. Write a trace entry into shared memory, trap into the kernel on overflow.
> 2. Trap if a condition is satisfied (fast watchpoint implementation).
>
> >Is the instrumentation code
> >that corresponds to the uprobe handlers encoded in an ad hoc .so?
>
> Looks like a good idea, but it doesn't matter much to me.
>
That looks to be a nice idea. We should certainly look into this
possibility. However can we look at this option probably a little later?
Our plan was to do one step at a time i.e have the basic uprobes in
first and target the booster (i.e jump to the next instruction without
the need for single-stepping next).
We could look at this option of using jump instead of int3 after we are
done with the booster. Hope that's okay.
--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar
--
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