[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1273609938.1810.81.camel@laptop>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 22:32:18 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/11] Uprobes Implementation
On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 17:30 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > - I don't really understand why ->handler_in_interrupt is really
> > > useful, but never mind.
> >
> > There is a small overhead when running the handlers in task context.
>
> Sure, but
>
> > overhead of task over interrupt = (1.016851 - .907400) = .109451 usec
> > % additional overhead = (.109451/.907400) * 100 = 12.062%
>
> this overhead looks very minor. To me, it is better to simplify the
> code, at least in the first version.
>
> That said, this is up to you, I am not asking you to remove this
> optimization. Just imho.
Right so what I've suggested several times it to simply call the same
handler in both contexts. If it returns -EFAULT, set TIF_UPROBE or
whatever and try again from task context.
--
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