Re: [patch 02/11] x86 architecture implementation of HardwareBreakpoint interfaces

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 18:26 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> That 'arbitrarily larg number of breakpoints' worries me. It's a 
> pretty broken concept for a 4-items resource that cannot be 
> time-shared and hence cannot be overcommitted.
> 
> Seems to me that much of the complexity of this patchset:
> 
>  28 files changed, 2439 insertions(+), 199 deletions(-)
> 
> Could be eliminated via a very simple exclusive reservation 
> mechanism.
> 
I also have some worries about the bloat of this infrastructure,
especially in the context switching code.

I would prefer the arch to be in control of the state in the task struct
and just context switch the actual HW registers at that stage.

Ben.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/