[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120423212536.GA8700@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 23:25:36 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
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
forgot to mention,
On 04/23, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> Just it seems to me there are to many "details"
> we should discuss to make the filtering reasonable.
And so far we assumed that consumer->filter() is "stable" and never
changes its mind.
Perhaps this is fine, but I am not sure. May we need need some
interface to add/del the task. Probably not, but unregister + register
doesn't look very convenient and can miss a hit.
> Yes, and probably this makes sense for handler_chain(). Although otoh
> I do not really understand what this filter buys us at this point.
But if we change the rules so that ->filter() or ->handler() itself can
return the "please remove this bp from ->mm" then perhaps it makes more
sense for the filtering. Again, not sure.
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