Re: [PATCH] Revert "x86: optimize page faults like all otherachitectures and kill notifier cruft"

[Ingo Molnar]

(kprobes folks Cc:-ed)

* David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 08:19:45 +0100
> 
> > On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 03:55:20AM +0000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> > > now because Linus said send him a patch to revert regressions rather than 
> > > just complain,
> > 
> > this is not a regression by any definition.  You were abusing 
> > exported symbols for out of tree junk, so you'll lose.
> 
> And furthermore, they don't even need it, use a kprobe.

i agree. There a few practical complication on x86: the do_page_fault() 
function is currently excluded from kprobe probing, for recursion 
reasons. handle_mm_fault() can be probed OTOH - but that does not catch 
vmalloc()-ed faults. The middle of do_page_fault() [line 348] should 
work better [the point after notify_page_fault()] - but it's usually 
more fragile to insert probes to such middle-of-the-function places.

So probing pagefaults is not as easy as it should/could be. We should 
put a practical NOP marker to around line 348, to make it easier (and 
faster) for systemtap to probe there.

(__kprobes is a highly confusing newspeak name btw - it should be 
__noprobe instead.)

	Ingo
--
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/