[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240801140639.GE4038@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 16:06:39 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Liao Chang <liaochang1@...wei.com>
Cc: mhiramat@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com,
acme@...nel.org, namhyung@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, jolsa@...nel.org,
irogers@...gle.com, adrian.hunter@...el.com,
kan.liang@...ux.intel.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] uprobes: Improve scalability by reducing the contention
on siglock
On 08/01, Liao Chang wrote:
>
> @@ -2276,22 +2277,25 @@ static void handle_singlestep(struct uprobe_task *utask, struct pt_regs *regs)
> int err = 0;
>
> uprobe = utask->active_uprobe;
> - if (utask->state == UTASK_SSTEP_ACK)
> + switch (utask->state) {
> + case UTASK_SSTEP_ACK:
> err = arch_uprobe_post_xol(&uprobe->arch, regs);
> - else if (utask->state == UTASK_SSTEP_TRAPPED)
> + break;
> + case UTASK_SSTEP_TRAPPED:
> arch_uprobe_abort_xol(&uprobe->arch, regs);
> - else
> + fallthrough;
> + case UTASK_SSTEP_DENY_SIGNAL:
> + set_tsk_thread_flag(current, TIF_SIGPENDING);
> + break;
> + default:
> WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
> + }
Liao, at first glance this change looks "obviously wrong" to me.
But let me read this patch more carefully and reply on weekend,
I am a bit busy right now.
Thanks,
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists