[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <877hr4g49l.fsf@basil.nowhere.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 18:33:26 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: tromey@...hat.com
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Kyle Moffett <kyle@...fetthome.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Fr??d??ric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, utrace-devel@...hat.com,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: linux-next: add utrace tree
Tom Tromey <tromey@...hat.com> writes:
> * Use an fd, not SIGCHLD+wait, to report inferior state changes to gdb.
> Internally we're already using a self-pipe to integrate this into
> gdb's main loop. Relatedly, don't mess with the inferior's parentage.
How would having a kernel based solution be better over your
user space simulation?
BTW there's the new signalfd() system call that might do it
(haven't checked if it works for SIGCHLD)
> * Support "displaced stepping" in the kernel; I think this would improve
> performance when debugging in non-stop mode.
Not sure what "displaced stepping" is exactly, but it
sounds like the branch tracing extensions that got added a
few releases ago? On modern Intel chips they give you a branch
buffer in memory.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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