[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110920141204.GC6568@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 19:42:04 +0530
From: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3.1.0-rc4-tip 0/26] Uprobes patchset with perf
probe support
* Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> [2011-09-20 09:34:01]:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 05:29:38PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > - Uses i_mutex instead of uprobes_mutex.
>
> What for exactly? I'm pretty strict against introducing even more
> uses for i_mutex, it's already way to overloaded with different
> meanings.
>
There could be multiple simultaneous requests for adding/removing a
probe for the same location i.e same inode + same offset. These requests
will have to be serialized.
To serialize this we had used uprobes specific mutex (uprobes_mutex) in
the last patchset. However using uprobes_mutex will mean we will be
serializing requests for unrelated files. I.e if we get a request to
probe libpthread while we are inserting/deleting a probe on libc,
then we used to make the libpthread request wait unnecessarily.
This also means that I dont need to introduce yet another lock.
After using i_mutex, these two requests can run in parallel.
I had proposed this while answering one of the comments in the last
patchset. Since I didnt hear any complaints, I went ahead and
implemented this.
I could use any other inode/file/mapping based sleepable lock that is of
higher order than mmap_sem. Can you please let me know if we have
alternatives.
--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar
--
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