[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1001270302200.24253@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 03:04:58 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc: Tom Tromey <tromey@...hat.com>,
Kyle Moffett <kyle@...fetthome.net>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Fr??d??ric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
utrace-devel@...hat.com, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
JimKeniston <jkenisto@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: add utrace tree
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> Right, so there's two aspects:
>
> 1) concurrency when inserting the probe
That's the one I worried about. Stopping all threads will fix it,
obviously at a disastrous performance cost, but what do I care? As noted,
there are ways to do it safely with TLB switching, so it's fixable.
> 2) concurrency when hitting the probe
Yeah, I didn't worry about this part, since the only solution is the
out-of-line one, and I don't much care how the memory gets allocated for
it. Inserting a whole new vma seems pretty drastic, but compared to
stopping all threads, it's a small thing.
Linus
--
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