On Fri, 29 Nov 2013, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > Andi, et al. I am going to discuss the things I do not really > > > understand, probably this can't make any sense, but... > > > > I think it's enough to set the dirty bit in the underlying > > struct page, no need to play games with the PTE. > > Ah, sorry for confusion, I guess you misunderstood. > > I meant, perhaps sys_text_poke() doesn't the in-kernel text_poke > machinery altogether? > > Can't we invalidate pte (so that any user will stuck in page fault), > update the page(s), restore the pte and drop the locks?
Do you think this'd be faster than the int3-based aproach? We have moved from using stop_machine() to int3-based patching exactly because it's much more lightweight. > This way sys_text_poke() won't be x86-specific, and it will be per-mm. Good point, it'd be really nice to have this as an alternative on archs where breakpoint-based patching wouldn't be possible for some reason. -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
