lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jan]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC Patch 2/2][Bugfix][x86][hw-breakpoint] Fix return-code to notifier chain in hw_breakpoint_handler
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 03:58:26PM +0530, K.Prasad wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 11:11:04PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > Is that < TASK_SIZE an accurate check? We want support for
> > userspace breakpoints on perf tools later, and those don't want
> > signals.
> >
>
> Well, signal generation for user-space breakpoints happened
> unconditionally for 'historical' reasons (guess that Alan Stern's
> original patch had it that way).
>
> We could change that into a 'ptrace-only' signal generation now.



Yeah, now that we can have multiple-purpose concurrent breakpoints,
this is necessary.



> > We do this cleanup in the beginning of the breakpoint handler:
> >
> > current->thread.debugreg6 &= ~DR_TRAP_BITS;
> >
> > And from ptrace.c:ptrace_triggered():
> >
> > thread->debugreg6 |= (DR_TRAP0 << i);
> >
> > This is called on perf_bp_event().
> > Instead of checking if this is a userspace thread, we should actually
> > check if this is a ptrace breakpoint by looking at this
> > in the end of hw_breakpoint_handler().
> >
> > current->thread.debugreg6 & DR_TRAP_BITS
> >
> > Only ptrace breakpoints require signals.
> >
>
> Yes, this does look like a clean way to limit signals to those requests
> that are interested (I was looking at round-about ways like doing a
> lookup based on callback functions).
>
> I will send the next version of the patch with the above changes.


Thanks.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-01-27 17:15    [W:0.051 / U:0.940 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site