[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52524FAA.1030901@in.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 11:37:38 +0530
From: "Suzuki K. Poulose" <suzuki@...ibm.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC: Janani Venkataraman <jananive@...ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, amwang@...hat.com,
rdunlap@...otime.net, aravinda@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, hch@....de,
mhiramat@...hat.com, jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com,
xemul@...allels.com, suzuki@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, adobriyan@...il.com,
tarundsk@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, vapier@...too.org,
roland@...k.frob.com, tj@...nel.org, ananth@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
gorcunov@...nvz.org, avagin@...nvz.org, oleg@...hat.com,
eparis@...hat.com, d.hatayama@...fujitsu.com,
james.hogan@...tec.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 00/19] Non disruptive application core dump infrastructure
using task_work_add()
On 10/04/2013 07:14 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 04:00:12PM +0530, Janani Venkataraman wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The following series implements an infrastructure for capturing the core of an
>> application without disrupting its process.
>
> The problem is that gcore et.al. have to stop the process briefly
> to attach and then use the pid mmap ptrace interfaces, right?
>
Correct.
> Couldn't they just use the new process_vm_readv() syscalls instead?
> AFAIK those do not require ptrace.
>
We need the register set and hence would need a ptrace.
> Then this could be all done in user space.
>
> Or are there some specific races with this approach?
>
Cheers
Suzuki
--
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