Re: HW breakpoints perf_events request
From: Frank Ch. Eigler
Date: Tue Jan 19 2010 - 12:44:45 EST
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 05:21:02PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> But I rather hope we can extend ptrace interface to handle such new
> needs instead (ie: having a more scalable breakpoint interface
> support by ptrace).
According to its maintainer, ptrace per se appears to be not well
suited for extensions that affect control flow, but maybe.
> > Another is using the gdbstub, extended with gdb watchpoint support (Z*
> > packets), which would tie into the hw-breakpoint system directly.
> > [...]
> Is this gdbstub an interface to utrace?
> This: http://lwn.net/Articles/364268/ ?
Yes, but I wouldn't think of it that way ("an interface to utrace").
Yes, it uses utrace, but that's an implementation detail. To
userspace it presents gdb's existing wire protocol for debugging
> > > Do you plan a resubmission soon?
> > Utrace core has been resubmitted at the end of December
> > (http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/12/17/466), with no further comments
> > received.
> Hmm, there has been deep review from Peter, IIRC.
I haven't seen any after that particular resubmission. Rather, there
has been lots of discussion lately about *uprobes*, which is a
separate & optional process breakpoint management layer that happens
to use utrace and happens to be used by systemtap and the gdbstub.
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/