[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100512140433.GD13606@in.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 19:34:33 +0530
From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Mark Wielaard <mjw@...hat.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/10] Uprobes v3
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 03:39:20PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 18:57 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> > Now, as long as we have the housekeeping code to handle the
> > possibility of a thread hitting the said breakpoint when its being
> > removed, is it safe to assume atomicity for replacing one byte of
> > possibly a longer instruction?
>
> Dunno I'm not a hardware guy, but the issue is so simple to side-step
> I'm not sure why you're arguing for relying on these special semantics.
Yes we know what to do, but I am just trying to get clarity if its
possible at all, since Mathieu was pretty sure that the hoops aren't
necessary...
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