On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 8:55 PM Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 13:34:09 -0700
> Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>
> > trace_uprobe->nhit counter is not incremented atomically, so its value
> > is questionable in when uprobe is hit on multiple CPUs simultaneously.
> >
> > Also, doing this
On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 13:34:09 -0700
Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> trace_uprobe->nhit counter is not incremented atomically, so its value
> is questionable in when uprobe is hit on multiple CPUs simultaneously.
>
> Also, doing this shared counter increment across many CPUs causes heavy
> cache line bou
On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 13:34:09 -0700
Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> trace_uprobe->nhit counter is not incremented atomically, so its value
> is questionable in when uprobe is hit on multiple CPUs simultaneously.
>
> Also, doing this shared counter increment across many CPUs causes heavy
> cache line bou
On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 01:34:09PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> trace_uprobe->nhit counter is not incremented atomically, so its value
> is questionable in when uprobe is hit on multiple CPUs simultaneously.
>
> Also, doing this shared counter increment across many CPUs causes heavy
> cache lin
On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 1:34 PM Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>
> trace_uprobe->nhit counter is not incremented atomically, so its value
> is questionable in when uprobe is hit on multiple CPUs simultaneously.
>
> Also, doing this shared counter increment across many CPUs causes heavy
> cache line bounci
5 matches
Mail list logo
