[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100324020342.GB5704@count0.beaverton.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 19:03:42 -0700
From: Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: Christoffer Dall <christofferdall@...istofferdall.dk>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [C/R ARM][PATCH 1/3] ARM: Rudimentary syscall interfaces
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 08:53:42PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 09:06:03PM -0400, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > This small commit introduces a global state of system calls for ARM
> > making it possible for a debugger or checkpointing to gain information
> > about another process' state with respect to system calls.
>
> I don't particularly like the idea that we always store the syscall
> number to memory for every system call, whether the stored version is
> used or not.
>
> Since ARM caches are generally not write allocate, this means mostly
> write-only variables can have a higher than expected expense.
>
> Is there not some thread flag which can be checked to see if we need to
> store the syscall number?
Perhaps before we freeze the task we can save the syscall number on ARM.
The patches suggest that the signal delivery path -- which the freezer
utilizes -- has the syscall number already.
Should work since the threads must be frozen first anyway.
Cheers,
-Matt Helsley
--
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