[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers

    Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
    > This method is very similar to the djprobe.
    > And I had gotten the same idea to support preemptive kernel.
    > This means the below code, doesn't this?
    > ---
    > jmp 1f /* short jump consumes 2 bytes */
    > nop
    > nop
    > nop
    > 1:

    Actually this is slightly different (and requires more support
    on behalf of the underlying mechanism then what I was suggesting.)
    Basically, as was discussed elsewhere, there is some complex
    mechanisms required for taking care of the case where you got
    an interrupt at, say, the second or third nop. With the
    mechanism I'm suggesting (replacing a 5 byte jmp with a 5 byte
    jmp), the underlying mechanics do not require having to take
    care of the above-mentioned case.

    > - Serialize all processor's cache by using IPI and cpuid.


    > I think the djprobe can provide most of functionalities which
    > your idea requires.
    > I'll update the djprobe against for 2.6.17 or later as soon as
    > possible. Would you try to use it?

    Basically I'm trying to come up with a mechanism that will be
    relatively trivial to implement on any architecture. My
    understanding is that kprobes/djprobes combo do not necessarily
    fit this description. Of course, that's not a justification for
    not trying to get it to work, but my understanding is that
    Martin's proposal, if it were implemented, would have a number
    of advantages over just having kprobes/djprobes.

    Though, in fact, djprobes can be used on the x86 (since it
    already works on that) for doing exactly what I'm looking
    for: replacing a 5 byte jmp with a 5 byte jmp. My understanding
    is that djprobes doesn't need any special intelligence (even
    on preemptable kernels) here since it shouldn't need to worry
    about an IP back anywhere inside a series of nops. IOW, we
    should be able to do what Martin suggests fairly easily (if
    we agree on a 5-byte "null" jump at the entry of functions
    of interest). Right?

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

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-09-20 19:15    [W:0.020 / U:10.388 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site