From: Oleg Nesterov
uprobe_trace_print() and uprobe_perf_print() need to pass the additional
info to call_fetch() methods, currently there is no simple way to do this.
current->utask looks like a natural place to hold this info, but we need
to allocate it before handler_chain().
This is a bit u
From: Oleg Nesterov
uprobe_trace_print() and uprobe_perf_print() need to pass the additional
info to call_fetch() methods, currently there is no simple way to do this.
current->utask looks like a natural place to hold this info, but we need
to allocate it before handler_chain().
This is a bit u
(2013/12/09 15:20), Namhyung Kim wrote:
> From: Oleg Nesterov
>
> uprobe_trace_print() and uprobe_perf_print() need to pass the additional
> info to call_fetch() methods, currently there is no simple way to do this.
>
> current->utask looks like a natural place to hold this info, but we need
> t
(2013/12/13 4:46), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 12/12, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>>
>> (2013/12/12 3:11), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>> On 12/11, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
But it could skip the handler_chain silently. It could confuse users
why their probe doesn't hit as expected.
>>>
>>> No, we
On 12/12, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>
> (2013/12/12 3:11), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 12/11, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> >>
> >> But it could skip the handler_chain silently. It could confuse users
> >> why their probe doesn't hit as expected.
> >
> > No, we will restart the same (probed) instruction,
(2013/12/12 3:11), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 12/11, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>>
>> (2013/12/11 0:57), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>> On 12/10, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
and isn't it better to increment
miss-hit counter of the uprobe?
>>>
>>> What do you mean? This is not miss-hit and ->utask
On 12/11, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>
> (2013/12/11 0:57), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 12/10, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> >>
> >> and isn't it better to increment
> >> miss-hit counter of the uprobe?
> >
> > What do you mean? This is not miss-hit and ->utask == NULL is quite normal.
>
> But it could sk
(2013/12/11 0:57), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 12/10, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>>
>> (2013/12/09 15:20), Namhyung Kim wrote:
>>> From: Oleg Nesterov
>>>
>>> uprobe_trace_print() and uprobe_perf_print() need to pass the additional
>>> info to call_fetch() methods, currently there is no simple way to d
Hi Oleg,
On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:57:44 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 12/10, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>>
>> (2013/12/09 15:20), Namhyung Kim wrote:
>> > From: Oleg Nesterov
>> >
>> > uprobe_trace_print() and uprobe_perf_print() need to pass the additional
>> > info to call_fetch() methods, curren
On 12/10, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>
> (2013/12/09 15:20), Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > From: Oleg Nesterov
> >
> > uprobe_trace_print() and uprobe_perf_print() need to pass the additional
> > info to call_fetch() methods, currently there is no simple way to do this.
> >
> > current->utask looks like a
(2013/12/09 15:20), Namhyung Kim wrote:
> From: Oleg Nesterov
>
> uprobe_trace_print() and uprobe_perf_print() need to pass the additional
> info to call_fetch() methods, currently there is no simple way to do this.
>
> current->utask looks like a natural place to hold this info, but we need
> t
From: Oleg Nesterov
uprobe_trace_print() and uprobe_perf_print() need to pass the additional
info to call_fetch() methods, currently there is no simple way to do this.
current->utask looks like a natural place to hold this info, but we need
to allocate it before handler_chain().
This is a bit u
From: Oleg Nesterov
uprobe_trace_print() and uprobe_perf_print() need to pass the additional
info to call_fetch() methods, currently there is no simple way to do this.
current->utask looks like a natural place to hold this info, but we need
to allocate it before handler_chain().
This is a bit u
13 matches
Mail list logo