[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120416214707.GA27639@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 23:47:07 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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 04/16, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2012-04-16 at 01:44 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > 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 with register/unregister.
Why do we need mm->uprobes_state.count? It is writeonly, except we
check it in the DIE_INT3 notifier before anything else to avoid the
unnecessary uprobes overhead.
Suppose we kill it, and add the new MMF_HAS_UPROBE flag instead.
install_breakpoint() sets it unconditionally,
uprobe_pre_sstep_notifier() checks it.
(And perhaps we can stop right here? I mean how often this can
slow down the debugger which installs int3 in the same mm?)
Now we need to clear MMF_HAS_UPROBE somehowe, when the last
uprobe goes away. Lets ignore uprobe_map/unmap for simplicity.
- We add another flag, MMF_UPROBE_RECALC, it is set by
remove_breakpoint().
- We change handle_swbp(). Ignoring all details it does:
if (find_uprobe(vaddr))
process_uprobe();
else if (test_bit(MMF_HAS_UPROBE) && test_bit(MMF_UPROBE_RECALC))
recalc_mmf_uprobe_flag();
where recalc_mmf_uprobe_flag() checks all vmas and either
clears both flags or MMF_UPROBE_RECALC only.
This is the really slow O(n) path, but it can only happen after
unregister, and only if we hit another non-uprobe breakpoint
in the same mm.
Something like this. What do you think?
Oleg.
--
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