[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100122072402.GA7440@in.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 12:54:02 +0530
From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>
To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
utrace-devel <utrace-devel@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
Maneesh Soni <maneesh@...ibm.com>,
Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ibm.com>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 0/7] UBP, XOL and Uprobes [ Summary of Comments
and actions to be taken ]
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:32:32PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> Here is a summary of the Comments and actions that need to be taken for
> the current uprobes patchset. Please let me know if I missed or
> misunderstood any of your comments.
>
> 1. Uprobes depends on trap signal.
> Uprobes depends on trap signal rather than hooking to the global
> die notifier. It was suggested that we hook to the global die notifier.
>
> In the next version of patches, Uprobes will use the global die
> notifier and look at the per-task count of the probes in use to
> see if it has to be consumed.
>
> However this would reduce the ability of uprobe handlers to
> sleep. Since we are dealing with userspace, sleeping in handlers
> would have been a good feature. We are looking at ways to get
> around this limitation.
We could set a TIF_ flag in the notifier to indicate a breakpoint hit
and process it in task context before the task heads into userspace.
Ananth
--
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