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

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 23:11 +0530, K.Prasad wrote:
> With FCFS or an allocation mechanism without the (un)installed()
> callbacks we'd lose the ability to record requests and service them
> later when registers become availabile.
> 
> Say when (un)installed() callbacks are implemented for the proposed
> ftrace-plugin to trace kernel symbols, they can automatically stop/start
> tracing as and when registers become (un)available. This can be helpful when
> we wish to profile memory access over a kernel variable for a long duration
> (where small loss of tracing data can be tolerated), while the system would
> permit simultaneous user-space access (say a GDB session using 'hbreak').
> 
> Are we fine with disallowing such usage, which if done will let the requester
> of the breakpoint register 'poll' periodically to check availability.

Is that such a big deal ? Can't we just have the kernel degrade to
classic SW breakpoints ?

Smells like overengineering to me ...

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/