Re: [RFC] [PATCH 0/7] UBP, XOL and Uprobes [ Summary of Commentsand actions to be taken ]
From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Fri Jan 22 2010 - 05:48:24 EST
On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 12:54 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:32:32PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > Here is a summary of the Comments and actions that need to be taken for
> > the current uprobes patchset. Please let me know if I missed or
> > misunderstood any of your comments.
> > 1. Uprobes depends on trap signal.
> > Uprobes depends on trap signal rather than hooking to the global
> > die notifier. It was suggested that we hook to the global die notifier.
> > In the next version of patches, Uprobes will use the global die
> > notifier and look at the per-task count of the probes in use to
> > see if it has to be consumed.
> > However this would reduce the ability of uprobe handlers to
> > sleep. Since we are dealing with userspace, sleeping in handlers
> > would have been a good feature. We are looking at ways to get
> > around this limitation.
> We could set a TIF_ flag in the notifier to indicate a breakpoint hit
> and process it in task context before the task heads into userspace.
Make that optional, not everybody might want that. Either provide a
simple trampoline or use a flag to indicate the callback be called from
process context on registration.
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/