[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1334571419.28150.30.camel@twins>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 12:16:59 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Anton Arapov <anton@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/6] uprobes: kill uprobes_srcu/uprobe_srcu_id
On Mon, 2012-04-16 at 01:44 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> No. Please note that if is_swbp_at_addr_fast() sets is_swbp == 0 we
> restart this insn.
Ah, see I was missing something.. Hmm ok, let me think about this a
little more though.. but at least I think I'm now (finally!) seeing what
you propose.
> And. I have another reason for down_write() in register/unregister.
> I am still not sure this is possible (I had no time to try to
> implement), but it seems to me we can kill the uprobe counter in
> mm_struct.
You mean by making register/unregister down_write, you're exclusive with
munmap() and thus we can rely on is_swbp_at_addr_fast() to inspect the
address to see if there's a breakpoint or not and avoid the rest of the
work that way?
--
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