Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:15:18 -0700 | From | Mike Grundy <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] kprobes for s390 architecture |
| |
On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 06:38:40PM +0200, Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 21:28 -0700, Mike Grundy wrote: > > Hi Martin - This patch implements the suggestions from your review. There were > > a couple points I wanted to go over: > > > There are some more instructions missing that need fixup: > > > "brxh" 0x84??????, "brxle" 0x85??????, "brc" 0xa7?4????, > > > "brct" 0xa7?6????, "brctg" 0xa7?7????, "bctgr" 0xb946????, > > > "brxhg" 0xec????????44 and "brxlg" 0xec??????45. > > Since all of these are relative branches, and they don't save the psw, the > > standard clean up of adjusting the original psw by the offset from the out of > > line address after single step. Unless I'm just being dense :-) > > All of these are conditional branches, if the branch is not taken you > have to do a cleanup. The reason I have a special cleanup for the other branches is the easy way to tell if the branch wasn't taken is the pswa = orig pswa + instruction length. The relative branches get cleaned up the same way if the branch was taken or not, pswa = probe_addr + (out of line end psw - out of line start psw). These are all relative branches and while they need cleanup, they don't get treated differently based on the branch status.
> You misunderstood me here. I'm not talking about storing the same piece > of data to memory on each processor. I'm talking about isolating all > other cpus so that the initiating cpu can store the breakpoint to memory Yep, I misunderstood that. The serialization is the point, not the replacement of a word in memory.
-- Thanks Mike - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |