[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1296037239.28776.1149.camel@laptop>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 11:20:39 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
SystemTap <systemtap@...rces.redhat.com>,
Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 2.6.37-rc5-tip 8/20] 8: uprobes: mmap and fork
hooks.
On Wed, 2011-01-26 at 14:33 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
>
>
> I actually dont like to release the write_lock and then reacquire it.
> write_opcode, which is called thro install_uprobe, i.e to insert the
> actual breakpoint instruction takes a read lock on the mmap_sem.
> Hence uprobe_mmap gets called in context with write lock on mmap_sem
> held, I had to release it before calling install_uprobe.
Ah, right, so that's going to give you a head-ache ;-)
The moment you release this mmap_sem, the map you're going to install
the probe point in can go away.
The only way to make this work seems to start by holding the mmap_sem
for writing and make a breakpoint install function that assumes its
taken and doesn't try to acquire it again.
--
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