[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100615121804.GA5342@nowhere>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 14:18:07 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
systemtap <systemtap@...rces.redhat.com>,
DLE <dle-develop@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ibm.com>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip v3 3/5] x86: Introduce text_poke_smp_batch() for
batch-code modifying
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:53:26PM -0400, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> Introduce text_poke_smp_batch(). This function modifies several
> text areas with one stop_machine() on SMPr. Because calling
> stop_machine() is heavy task, it is better to aggregate text_poke
> requests.
>
> Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>
> Cc: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> Cc: Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ibm.com>
> Cc: Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>
> Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
<snip>
> +/**
> + * text_poke_smp_batch - Update instructions on a live kernel on SMP
> + * @params: an array of text_poke parameters
> + * @n: the number of elements in params.
> + *
> + * Modify multi-byte instruction by using stop_machine() on SMP. Since the
> + * stop_machine() is heavy task, it is better to aggregate text_poke requests
> + * and do it once if possible.
> + *
> + * Note: Must be called under get_online_cpus() and text_mutex.
> + */
> +void __kprobes text_poke_smp_batch(struct text_poke_param *params, int n)
> +{
> + struct text_poke_params tpp = {.params = params, .nparams = n};
> +
> + atomic_set(&stop_machine_first, 1);
> + wrote_text = 0;
> + stop_machine(stop_machine_text_poke, (void *)&tpp, NULL);
> +}
Looks good. But wouldn't it be even better to get stop_machine()
be able to support batches itself?
We could have stop_machine_queue() and stop_machine_flush(),
stop_machine() would be a shortcut for both, to execute single jobs,
may be that could simplify some code here and there.
--
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