From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753550Ab0ATMYi (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jan 2010 07:24:38 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752137Ab0ATMYh (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jan 2010 07:24:37 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:61336 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751261Ab0ATMYg (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jan 2010 07:24:36 -0500 Message-ID: <4B56F5DE.1060405@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:23:58 +0200 From: Avi Kivity User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091209 Fedora/3.0-4.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Srikar Dronamraju CC: Jim Keniston , Pekka Enberg , Peter Zijlstra , ananth@in.ibm.com, Ingo Molnar , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , utrace-devel , Frederic Weisbecker , Masami Hiramatsu , Maneesh Soni , Mark Wielaard , LKML Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/7] User Space Breakpoint Assistance Layer (UBP) References: <84144f021001180413w76a8ca2axb0b9f07ee4dea67e@mail.gmail.com> <4B545146.3080001@redhat.com> <20100118124419.GC1628@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <84144f021001180451k2a84f17x3dc24796fea986c9@mail.gmail.com> <4B5459CA.9060603@redhat.com> <4B545ACF.40203@cs.helsinki.fi> <1263852957.2266.38.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4B556855.6040800@redhat.com> <1263923265.4998.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4B56D027.3010808@redhat.com> <20100120104541.GB30109@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20100120104541.GB30109@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 01/20/2010 12:45 PM, Srikar Dronamraju wrote: >>> What does the code in the jumped-to vma do? >>> >> 1. Write a trace entry into shared memory, trap into the kernel on overflow. >> 2. Trap if a condition is satisfied (fast watchpoint implementation). >> > That looks to be a nice idea. We should certainly look into this > possibility. However can we look at this option probably a little later? > > Our plan was to do one step at a time i.e have the basic uprobes in > first and target the booster (i.e jump to the next instruction without > the need for single-stepping next). > > We could look at this option of using jump instead of int3 after we are > done with the booster. Hope that's okay. > I'm all for incremental development and merging, as long as we keep the interfaces flexible enough for the future. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function