From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84B69C433DF for ; Sat, 4 Jul 2020 18:31:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E18720737 for ; Sat, 4 Jul 2020 18:31:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="JtMO7CWw" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726922AbgGDSbJ (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Jul 2020 14:31:09 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:47174 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726703AbgGDSbI (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Jul 2020 14:31:08 -0400 Received: from mail-qt1-x843.google.com (mail-qt1-x843.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::843]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B571C061794; Sat, 4 Jul 2020 11:31:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qt1-x843.google.com with SMTP id j10so26116276qtq.11; Sat, 04 Jul 2020 11:31:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=UFLUHOIJlWWk7hAI07Y9tp1o5QM5QJCYXSXyL0loMUc=; b=JtMO7CWw51DLAx12Q1J7wDQrbMLhCpTUxO44RqG7IexDvBT3q/Ppj/UrQyV4iupDhg /55dybi9z2Ip1geGBwWutbj91Ou1gqVieINEmiTZ/bH6CNGiPnZkVompFBiTVtuq11Hq V3j3XbYzDoCXX0a1Z45umxZsJ9vTklMXVTauHc7pl28MCAE3L8ZT5oqpWlyl8kH4AqRg sY9MO+xVu58iyOk1zqeUZvlJzJ6TWWPwoON8Tj0a+W1xmxpkHPpNjUrMWRiHqWzHkocH Al1Zi/WqxVY6u6iAJbzeukTCQR8CoNp8vQHenRjmpMW/lwnowiYeOsefSlWsrpOpiiZH ovKw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=UFLUHOIJlWWk7hAI07Y9tp1o5QM5QJCYXSXyL0loMUc=; b=JO+jtpP4PGU2jstLM24AoZck/J2cr3X2mfi3Tkl0iziUe9zPirX2pWVNF85heLQyBX iXWhaVTAvG9967PC6IYtgCD1xTOvDtOCgY3HtiKEVGBHb94/NV3ysOEfcB7+8LfZTZtY XTo7gM+kYkhMRRqubdEJZP6XY8IucY2Ly4LhbBYICg/NYc1gfdnY/KFAbANAbUKS+DpX 5ps3eyyUH/X5OkrIpo4Bu5ETgIIgUAL3fGqghypqLA65C2awO7WvkrEwwzIQ4S62BXrO Quch5if8o6cSGmP3NPpP9ZRzM0IZa8poccGVn/e7qYKtolst9q7+01EsLTjQytkoRmwl PFXg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531ytmlBdxx9Jet2AFNMRl/kSePXUOj+OIETsHff8O/AGNlXmGZm wOQ/GZ8+JJt129KdW7418LN17ndg8r9Rj3chjS0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwSRtILfOImuh8qk8haIBu/Hxgg+XL6PXWIgOMU1jKJ7Qi5EhbGfS4iXfEMEQwvOgsLA+uDBZjvovcMQpvgIRk= X-Received: by 2002:ac8:4b5b:: with SMTP id e27mr39335257qts.96.1593887467803; Sat, 04 Jul 2020 11:31:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1593833659-26224-1-git-send-email-guoren@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: From: Pekka Enberg Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2020 21:30:50 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH V1 0/5] riscv: Add k/uprobe supported To: Guo Ren Cc: Palmer Dabbelt , Paul Walmsley , Anup Patel , Greentime Hu , Zong Li , =?UTF-8?Q?Patrick_St=C3=A4hlin?= , bjorn.topel@gmail.com, Atish Patra , linux-riscv , Guo Ren , LKML , linux-csky@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-csky-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-csky@vger.kernel.org Hi Guo, On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 6:34 AM wrote: > > > There is no single step exception in riscv ISA, so utilize ebreak to > > > simulate. Some pc related instructions couldn't be executed out of line > > > and some system/fence instructions couldn't be a trace site at all. > > > So we give out a reject list and simulate list in decode-insn.c. On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 2:40 PM Pekka Enberg wrote: > > Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? Why would you need a > > single-step facility for kprobes? Is it for executing the instruction > > that was replaced with a probe breakpoint? On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 5:55 PM Guo Ren wrote: > It's the single-step exception, not single-step facility! Aah, right, I didn't read the specification carefully enough. Thanks for taking the time to clarify this! FWIW, for the whole series: Reviewed-by: Pekka Enberg - Pekka