On Thu, 2010-01-14 at 11:46 -0800, Jim Keniston wrote:
discussed elsewhere.
Thanks for the pointer...
On Thu, 2010-01-14 at 14:49 -0800, Jim Keniston wrote:
On Thu, 2010-01-14 at 12:09 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, 2010-01-11 at 17:55 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
Uprobes Infrastructure enables user to dynamically establish
probepoints in user applications and collect
Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org writes:
[...]
Right, so all that need be done is add the multiple probe stuff to UBP
and its a sane interface to use on its own, at which point I'd be
inclined to call that uprobes (UBP really is an crap name).
At one point ubp+uprobes were one piece.
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 04:26 -0500, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org writes:
[...]
Right, so all that need be done is add the multiple probe stuff to UBP
and its a sane interface to use on its own, at which point I'd be
inclined to call that uprobes (UBP really
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:03:48AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, 2010-01-14 at 11:46 -0800, Jim Keniston wrote:
discussed elsewhere.
Thanks for the pointer...
:-)
Peter,
I think Jim was referring to
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/systemtap/2007-q1/msg00571.html
Ananth
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 15:08 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:03:48AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, 2010-01-14 at 11:46 -0800, Jim Keniston wrote:
discussed elsewhere.
Thanks for the pointer...
:-)
Peter,
I think Jim was referring to
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 15:40 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
Ideas?
emulate the one instruction?
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:13:32AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 15:40 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
Ideas?
emulate the one instruction?
In kernel? Generically? Don't think its that easy for userspace --
you have the full gamut of instructions to emulate
Hi Peter,
My reply in
http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1001.1/02483.html
addresses this.
Right, so all that need be done is add the multiple probe stuff to UBP
and its a sane interface to use on its own, at which point I'd be
inclined to call that uprobes (UBP
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 15:56 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
Hi Peter,
Or there could be two threads that could be racing to
insert/delete a breakpoint. These synchronization issues are all handled
by the Uprobes layer.
Shouldn't be hard to put that in the ubp layer, right?
Uprobes layer
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 15:52 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:13:32AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 15:40 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
Ideas?
emulate the one instruction?
In kernel? Generically? Don't think its
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:33:27AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 15:56 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
Hi Peter,
Or there could be two threads that could be racing to
insert/delete a breakpoint. These synchronization issues are all handled
by the Uprobes layer.
* Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org [2010-01-15 10:07:35]:
On Thu, 2010-01-14 at 14:43 -0800, Jim Keniston wrote:
Yeah, there's not a lot of context there. I hope it will make more
sense if you read section 1.1 of Documentation/uprobes.txt (patch #6).
Or look at get_insn_slot() in
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 16:35 +0530, Maneesh Soni wrote:
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:33:27AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 15:56 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
Hi Peter,
Or there could be two threads that could be racing to
insert/delete a breakpoint. These
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 12:12 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 16:35 +0530, Maneesh Soni wrote:
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:33:27AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 15:56 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
Hi Peter,
Or there could be two threads
* Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org [2010-01-15 11:33:27]:
Uprobes layer would need to be notified of process life-time events
like fork/clone/exec/exit.
No so much the process lifetimes as the vma life times are interesting,
placing a hook in the vm code to track that isn't too
Hi -
Then we can ditch the whole utrace muck as I see no reason to want to
use that, whereas the ubp (given a sane name) looks interesting.
Assuming you meant what you write, perhaps you misunderstand the
layering relationship of these pieces. utrace underlies uprobes and
other
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 19:50 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
Srikar seemed to suggest it needed stop/resume.
If process traps, We dont need to stop/resume other threads.
uprobes needs threads to quiesce when inserting/deleting the breakpoint.
Right, I don't think we need to at all. See
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 09:22 -0500, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
Hi -
Well, I'm not in a position to argue line by line about the necessity
or the cost of utrace low level guts, but this may represent the most
practical engineering balance between functionality / modularity /
undesirably
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:07 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, 2010-01-14 at 14:43 -0800, Jim Keniston wrote:
Yeah, there's not a lot of context there. I hope it will make more
sense if you read section 1.1 of Documentation/uprobes.txt (patch #6).
Or look at get_insn_slot() in
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:02 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, 2010-01-14 at 11:46 -0800, Jim Keniston wrote:
+Instruction copies to be single-stepped are stored in a per-process
+single-step out of line (XOL) area, which is a little VM area
+created by Uprobes in each probed
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 13:07 -0800, Jim Keniston wrote:
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:02 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, 2010-01-14 at 11:46 -0800, Jim Keniston wrote:
+Instruction copies to be single-stepped are stored in a per-process
+single-step out of line (XOL) area, which is a
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 12:18 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 12:12 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
...
Adding the probe uses the fact that (most) executable mappings are
MAP_PRIVATE and CoWs a private copy of the page with the modified ins,
right?
We've just used
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 19:50 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
Furthermore it requires stopping and resuming tasks and nonsense like
that, that's unwanted in many cases, just run stuff from the trap site
and you're done.
I don't know what you mean exactly. A trap already
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 12:12 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
...
Adding the probe uses the fact that (most) executable mappings are
MAP_PRIVATE and CoWs a private copy of the page with the modified ins,
right?
What does it do for MAP_SHARED|MAP_EXECUTABLE sections -- simply fail to
add the
25 matches
Mail list logo
