Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:50:31 -0500 | From | Jeff Dike <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] UML utrace support, step 1 |
| |
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 07:19:03PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote: > Your replacement patch still has utrace_regset stuff in it, so it doesn't > compile without the later patches in the series. Try applying only > utrace-tracehook.patch from the series, then get it to build and make your > utrace-tracehook-um.patch. Then apply only utrace-regset.patch on top of > that, and get that building to make utrace-regset-um.patch. Then apply > utrace-core.patch and utrace-ptrace-compat.patch to get ptrace finally > working again and make utrace-ptrace-compat-um.patch.
Ah, I was building with all of utrace, and observing that it didn't compile without all the bits in that patch. I'll back out the bits of utrace I don't need yet and send another patch.
> You'll still find this insufficient when you get to biarch support (x86_64). > At least you'll have to add another one elsewhere too, and make > utrace_native_view refer to both.
OK, I'll deal with that when I get to it.
> Ok. We do seem to have a problem when the host has CONFIG_PREEMPT=y, which > makes me suspect it might be a race problem that could also hit with enough > hardware parallelism. If you get a chance to try that and can characterize > the way it misbehaves at the level of specific ptrace/wait calls, that > would be a great help. Otherwise I'll try to look into it when I get some > time, but it's falling down the queue a bit since people don't seem too put > out about it right now.
I'll turn on preempt and see what happens.
Jeff
-- Work email - jdike at linux dot intel dot com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |