[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100121203207.GA20050@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:32:07 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Cc: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>, caiqian@...hat.com,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Jan Kratochvil <jkratoch@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
utrace-devel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: s390 && user_enable_single_step() (Was: odd utrace testing
results on s390x)
On 01/07, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
>
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 12:56:33 -0800 (PST)
> Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > In other circumstances with utrace, it is very possible to wind up with
> > user_disable_single_step being called superfluously when there was no
> > stop (and so not necessarily any context switch or other high overhead).
> > On other machines, user_disable_single_step is pretty cheap even where
> > user_enable_single_step is quite costly. Given how simple and cheap it
> > is to short-circuit the excess work on s390, I think it is worthwhile.
>
> We could use the same compare of the control registers as the code in
> __switch_to. See below.
FYI, I tested your c3311c13adc1021e986fef12609ceb395ffc5014 commit which
does this optimization (compared to the patch you sent previously), it
works fine.
But please see another email I am going to send...
Oleg.
--
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