[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131101152232.GA2703@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 16:22:32 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@....com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Hyeoncheol Lee <cheol.lee@....com>,
Hemant Kumar <hkshaw@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"zhangwei(Jovi)" <jovi.zhangwei@...wei.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/13] tracing/uprobes: Fetch args before reserving a
ring buffer
On 11/01, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> Hi Namhyung,
>
> Sorry if this was already discussed. But I can't really understand
> the idea of this per-cpu buffer...
>
> On 10/29, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> >
> > Fetching from user space should be done in a non-atomic context. So
> > use a per-cpu buffer and copy its content to the ring buffer
> > atomically. Note that we can migrate during accessing user memory
> > thus use a per-cpu mutex to protect concurrent accesses.
>
> And if the task migrates or just sleeps in page fault, another task
> which hits another uprobe on the same CPU should wait.
>
> Why we can't simply add trace_uprobe->buffer instead? Only to save
> some memory? But every uprobe is very expensive in this sense anyway.
Ah, please ignore... handler_chain() is not self-serialized, so
tu->buffer needs locking/waiting too.
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