Re: [RFC,PATCH 14/14] utrace core

From: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
	Ananth Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@in.ibm.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, utrace-devel@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH 14/14] utrace core
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:44:41 -0800 (PST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091214194441.4D6BFE24E@magilla.sf.frob.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Oleg Nesterov's message of  Monday, 14 December 2009 18:03:27 +0100 <20091214170327.GA7666@redhat.com>

> Yes, I think this is correct. It is fine to miss ->pending_attach == T,
> and in any case the new attacher can come right after the check, even
> if it was checked under utrace->lock.

Right.

> It is important that the tracee can't miss, say, UTRACE_REPORT request
> (as you already explained), and every time the tracee clears ->resume
> it calls splice_attaching().

Right.

> > In the stopped cases, there are lots of locks and barriers and things
> > after resuming.  (Oleg?)
> 
> Every time the tracee resumes after TASK_TRACED it uses utrace->lock
> to synchronize with utrace_control/etc, it must see any changes.

And TASK_STOPPED?

Please send me patches to add whatever comments would make all this clear
enough to Peter when reading the code.

Thanks,
Roland