[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131211181155.GA25144@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 19:11:55 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Hyeoncheol Lee <cheol.lee@....com>,
"zhangwei(Jovi)" <jovi.zhangwei@...wei.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
Hemant Kumar <hkshaw@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/17] uprobes: Allocate ->utask before handler_chain()
for tracing handlers
On 12/11, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>
> (2013/12/11 0:57), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 12/10, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> >>
> >> and isn't it better to increment
> >> miss-hit counter of the uprobe?
> >
> > What do you mean? This is not miss-hit and ->utask == NULL is quite normal.
>
> But it could skip the handler_chain silently. It could confuse users
> why their probe doesn't hit as expected.
No, we will restart the same (probed) instruction, handle_swbp()
will be called again, get_utask() will be called again.
Not to mention that (in practice) if GFP_KERNEL fails the task is
already killed.
> > For example, on ppc it can be always NULL because ppc likely emulates the
> > probed insn.
>
> Hmm, in that case, should uprobes handlers never be called on ppc with
> this change?
Why? With this change ppc will have ->utask != NULL even if it doesn't
need it at all.
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