[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20110128062316.9515018099A@magilla.sf.frob.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 22:23:16 -0800 (PST)
From: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
SystemTap <systemtap@...rces.redhat.com>,
Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 2.6.37-rc5-tip 13/20] 13: x86: x86 specific probe
handling
> Uprobes doesn't request/handle block-step for now. So can we postpone
> your suggested changes till uprobes needs to handle block-step?
That's not the issue. The way the hardware works is that if the bit is set
in the MSR, then the TF eflags bit means block-step instead of single-step.
So if PTRACE_SINGLEBLOCK has been used (i.e. user_enable_block_step), then
this can interfere with your use of single-step. You need to do the work
in the else branch of step.c:enable_step to ensure that the hardware is not
left in the state where it will do block-step instead of single-step when
uprobes wants a single-step done.
Thanks,
Roland
--
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