On 01/19/2010 07:47 PM, Jim Keniston wrote:
This is still with a kernel entry, yes?
Yes, this involves setting a breakpoint and trapping into the kernel
when it's hit. The 6-7x figure is with the current 2-trap approach
(breakpoint, single-step). Boosting could presumably make that
On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 11:43 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
1. Write a trace entry into shared memory, trap into the kernel on overflow.
2. Trap if a condition is satisfied (fast watchpoint implementation).
So now you want to consume more of a process' address space to store
trace data as well? Not to
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:10:26PM +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
It will cause conflicts with various other trees and increases the overhead
all around. It also causes us to trust linux-next bugreports less - as it's
not the 'next Linux' anymore. Also, there's virtually no
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:06:20PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
* Frederic Weisbecker fweis...@gmail.com [2010-01-19 19:06:12]:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 09:47:45AM -0800, Jim Keniston wrote:
What does the code in the jumped-to vma do? Is the instrumentation code
that corresponds
On 01/20/2010 11:57 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 11:43 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
1. Write a trace entry into shared memory, trap into the kernel on overflow.
2. Trap if a condition is satisfied (fast watchpoint implementation).
So now you want to consume more of a
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
Hi -
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 05:59:59PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
[...]
Including experimental code that is RFC and which is not certain to go
upstream is certainly not the purpose of linux-next though.
Ingo is correct in what he says here. See the boilerplate:
[...]
Basically,
Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org writes:
With CPL2 or RPL on user segments the protection issue seems to be
manageable for running the instructions from kernel space.
Nope -- it doesn't work on 64bit and even on 32bit can have large
costs on some CPUs.
Also designing 32bit only features
Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 09:47:45AM -0800, Jim Keniston wrote:
Do you have plans for a variant
that's completely in userspace?
I don't know of any such plans, but I'd be interested to read more of
your thoughts here. As I understand it, you've suggested replacing
Frank, please be clear as to which branch you want included (master or
utrace-ptrace). Also note that neither of those branches matches what
was posted in the sense that they both have lots of history and merges
not represented in the patches. (I assume that they do produce the same
final
10 matches
Mail list logo
