[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1308662243.26237.144.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 15:17:23 +0200
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>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3.0-rc2-tip 7/22] 7: uprobes: mmap and fork hooks.
On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 11:41 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On thing I was thinking of to fix that initial problem of spurious traps
> was to leave the uprobe in the tree but skip all probes without
> consumers in mmap_uprobe().
Can you find fault with using __unregister_uprobe() as a cleanup path
for __register_uprobe() so that we do a second vma-rmap walk, and
ignoring empty probes on uprobe_mmap()?
We won't get spurious traps because the empty (no consumers) uprobe is
still in the tree, we won't get any 'lost' probe insn because the
cleanup does a second vma-rmap walk which will include the new mmap().
And double probe insertion is harmless.
--
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