Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/7] User Space Breakpoint Assistance Layer (UBP) | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Date | Sun, 17 Jan 2010 15:52:19 +0100 |
| |
On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 16:39 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 01/15/2010 11:50 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > As previously stated, I think poking at a process's address space is an > > utter no-go. > > > > Why not reserve an address space range for this, somewhere near the top > of memory? It doesn't have to be populated if it isn't used.
Because I think poking at a process's address space like that is gross. Also, if its fixed size you're imposing artificial limits on the number of possible probes.
| |