[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120420185836.GB2236@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 20:58:36 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
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 04/20, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
>
> Yes, We install breakpoints unconditionally, I think we had already
> discussed this and Oleg had proposed a solution too.
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2011/6/16/470 where we move the mm struct from task
> struct to signal struct.
Yes, this too.
Hmm. May be we can do something else? Currently uprobe_consumer->filter()
returns a boolean. Perhaps it can return "yes" || "no" || "remove_bp" ?
But then another uprobe_register(same_addr) should handle this case
somehow. Just a crazy idea, unlikely it makes sense.
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