Re: Q: perf_event && task->ptrace_bps[]

From: Frederic Weisbecker
Date: Fri Jan 28 2011 - 12:41:19 EST

On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 06:28:10PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 01/19, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > OTOH I can drop
> > more of them for the no-running-breakpoint case from thread_struct
> > in a subsequent task.
> Hmm. Can't understand what do you mean. Just curious, could you explain?

Indeed now that I read that, it was completely not understandable :)

So I meant that currently we have this:


Where ptrace_bps is:

struct perf_event *ptrace_bps[BP_NUM];

And we populate that with pointers when needed. Now this is a waste
of space, I should better make it:

struct perf_event **ptrace_bps;

And only allocate the pointer space when needed.

> > Note the problem touches more archs than x86. Basically every
> > arch that use breakpoint use a similar scheme that must be fixed.
> Yes. Perhaps we should try to unify some code... Say, can't we move
> ->ptrace_bps[] to task_struct?

It seems that every archs that currently implement breakpoints have
this linear mapping of registers, even when physically they are not
linear: ARM has a seperate register space for instruction and data
breakpoints for example.

So yeah it seems we can store that in task_struct. I may try that
in a subsequent patch.

> > +void ptrace_put_breakpoints(struct task_struct *tsk)
> > +{
> > + if (!atomic_dec_return(&tsk->ptrace_bp_refcnt))
> > + flush_ptrace_hw_breakpoint(tsk);
> (minor nit, atomic_dec_and_test() looks more natural)

Indeed, will change that.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at