lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC 0/6] uprobes: kill uprobes_srcu/uprobe_srcu_id
    On 04/14, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
    >
    > On Fri, 2012-04-06 at 00:20 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
    > > Hello.
    > >
    > > Not for inclusion yet, only for the early review.
    > >
    > > I didn't even try to test these changes, and I am not expert
    > > in this area. And even _if_ this code is correct, I need to
    > > re-split these changes anyway, update the changelogs, etc.
    > >
    > > Questions:
    > >
    > > - does it make sense?
    >
    > Maybe, upside is reclaiming that int from task_struct, downside is that
    > down_write :/ It would be very good not to have to do that.

    Yes, down_write() is pessimization, I agree.

    > Nor do I
    > really see how that works.
    >
    > > - can it work or I missed something "in general" ?
    >
    > So we insert in the rb-tree before we take mmap_sem, this means we can
    > hit a non-uprobe int3 and still find a uprobe there, no?

    Yes, but unless I miss something this is "off-topic", this
    can happen with or without these changes. If find_uprobe()
    succeeds we assume that this bp was inserted by uprobe.

    Perhaps uprobe_register() should not "ignore" -EXIST from
    install_breakpoint()->is_swbp_insn(), or perhaps we can
    add UPROBE_SHARED_BP.

    Oleg.



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-04-14 22:55    [W:4.232 / U:0.024 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site