[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250820130134.GK4067720@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2025 15:01:34 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@...cle.com>,
David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
Thomas Weißschuh <thomas@...ch.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 perf/core 10/22] uprobes/x86: Add support to optimize
uprobes
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 02:19:15PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > This seems needlessly restrictive. Something like:
> >
> > is_nop5(const char *buf)
> > {
> > struct insn insn;
> >
> > ret = insn_decode_kernel(&insn, buf)
> > if (ret < 0)
> > return false;
> >
> > if (insn.length != 5)
> > return false;
> >
> > if (insn.opcode[0] != 0x0f ||
> > insn.opcode[1] != 0x1f)
> > return false;
> >
> > return true;
> > }
> >
> > Should do I suppose.
>
> ok, looks good, should I respin with this, or is follow up ok?
I cleaned up already; I pushed out these patches to queue/perf/core and
added a few of my own.
I will need to write better Changelogs, and post them, but I need to run
some errants first.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists