[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEf4BzYCMj911cj=qdntxLi3Roeav43AJPkMggKVHD4mp5OyWw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2024 10:20:01 +0200
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, mhiramat@...nel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jolsa@...nel.org,
paulmck@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] uprobes: implement SRCU-protected lifetime for
single-stepped uprobe
On Sun, Sep 15, 2024 at 4:51 PM Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On 09/09, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> >
> > Similarly to how we SRCU-protect uprobe instance (and avoid refcounting
> > it unnecessarily) when waiting for return probe hit, use hprobe approach
> > to do the same with single-stepped uprobe. Same hprobe_* primitives are
> > used. We also reuse ri_timer() callback to expire both pending
> > single-step uprobe and return instances.
>
> Well, I still think it would be better (and much simpler) to simply kill
> utask->active_uprobe, iirc I even sent the RFC patch...
>
let's do it, please send non-RFC patches and get them landed!
> Oleg.
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists