[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120813131623.GA5269@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:16:23 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ananth N Mavinakaynahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
stan_shebs@...tor.com, gdb-patches@...rceware.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 5/5] uprobes: add global breakpoints
On 08/09, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>
> * Oleg Nesterov | 2012-08-08 15:14:57 [+0200]:
>
> >> What I miss right now is an interface to tell the user/gdb that there is a
> >> program that hit a global breakpoint and is waiting for further instructions.
> >> A "tail -f trace" does not work and may contain also a lot of other
> >> informations. I've been thinking about a poll()able file which returns pids of
> >> tasks which are put on hold. Other suggestions?
> >
> >Honestly, I am not sure this is that useful...
>
> How would you notify gdb that there is a new task that hit a breakpoint?
> Or learn yourself?
But why do we need this?
OK, you do not need to convince me, I try to never argue with
new features.
However, I certainly dislike TASK_TRACED in uprobe_wait_traced().
And sleeping in ->handler() is not fair to other consumers.
And I do not think you should modify ptrace_attach() at all.
gdb/user can wakeup the task after PTRACE_ATTACH itself.
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