lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Sep]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 3.1.0-rc4-tip 0/26] Uprobes patchset with perf probe support
* Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> [2011-09-20 09:34:01]:

> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 05:29:38PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > - Uses i_mutex instead of uprobes_mutex.
>
> What for exactly? I'm pretty strict against introducing even more
> uses for i_mutex, it's already way to overloaded with different
> meanings.
>


There could be multiple simultaneous requests for adding/removing a
probe for the same location i.e same inode + same offset. These requests
will have to be serialized.

To serialize this we had used uprobes specific mutex (uprobes_mutex) in
the last patchset. However using uprobes_mutex will mean we will be
serializing requests for unrelated files. I.e if we get a request to
probe libpthread while we are inserting/deleting a probe on libc,
then we used to make the libpthread request wait unnecessarily.
This also means that I dont need to introduce yet another lock.

After using i_mutex, these two requests can run in parallel.

I had proposed this while answering one of the comments in the last
patchset. Since I didnt hear any complaints, I went ahead and
implemented this.

I could use any other inode/file/mapping based sleepable lock that is of
higher order than mmap_sem. Can you please let me know if we have
alternatives.

--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-09-20 16:37    [W:0.267 / U:10.788 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site