Re: [RFC] [PATCH 0/7] UBP, XOL and Uprobes [ Summary of Comments and actions to be taken ]

2010-01-27 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 07:53 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 12:54 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote: On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:32:32PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote: Here is a summary of the Comments and actions that need to be taken for the current uprobes

Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/7] User Space Breakpoint Assistance Layer (UBP)

2010-01-27 Thread Avi Kivity
On 01/27/2010 10:24 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: Not to mention that that process could wreck the trace data rendering it utterly unreliable. It could, but it also might not. Are we going to deny high performance tracing to users just because it doesn't work in all cases? Tracing

Re: linux-next: add utrace tree

2010-01-27 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote: On Tue, 2010-01-26 at 15:37 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: On Tue, 26 Jan 2010, Tom Tromey wrote: In non-stop mode (where you can stop one thread but leave the others running), gdb wants to have the breakpoints always inserted. So,

Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/7] User Space Breakpoint Assistance Layer (UBP)

2010-01-27 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote: On 01/27/2010 10:24 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: Not to mention that that process could wreck the trace data rendering it utterly unreliable. It could, but it also might not. Are we going to deny high performance tracing to users just because it doesn't

Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/7] User Space Breakpoint Assistance Layer (UBP)

2010-01-27 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote: If so then you ignore the obvious solution to _that_ problem: dont use INT3 at all, but rebuild (or re-JIT) your program with explicit callbacks. It's _MUCH_ faster than _any_ breakpoint based solution - literally just the cost of a function call

Re: linux-next: add utrace tree

2010-01-27 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Peter Zijlstra wrote: Right, so you're going to love uprobes, which does exactly that. The current proposal is overwriting the target instruction with an INT3 and injecting an extra vma into the target process's address space containing the original instruction(s) and

Re: linux-next: add utrace tree

2010-01-27 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 02:43 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Peter Zijlstra wrote: Right, so you're going to love uprobes, which does exactly that. The current proposal is overwriting the target instruction with an INT3 and injecting an extra vma into the target

Re: linux-next: add utrace tree

2010-01-27 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 11:55 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: Right, so there's two aspects: 1) concurrency when inserting the probe 2) concurrency when hitting the probe 1) used to be dealt with by using utrace to stop all threads in the process and then writing the instruction. I suggested

Re: linux-next: add utrace tree

2010-01-27 Thread Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:55:16AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 02:43 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Peter Zijlstra wrote: Right, so you're going to love uprobes, which does exactly that. The current proposal is overwriting the target

Re: linux-next: add utrace tree

2010-01-27 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Peter Zijlstra wrote: Right, so there's two aspects: 1) concurrency when inserting the probe That's the one I worried about. Stopping all threads will fix it, obviously at a disastrous performance cost, but what do I care? As noted, there are ways to do it safely

Re: linux-next: add utrace tree

2010-01-27 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 16:35 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote: Probing RIP-relative instructions work just fine; there are fixups that take care of it. Ah my bad then, it was my understanding you simply bailed on those. Just for my information, how large are the replacement sequences?

Re: linux-next: add utrace tree

2010-01-27 Thread Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 12:08:31PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 16:35 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote: Probing RIP-relative instructions work just fine; there are fixups that take care of it. Ah my bad then, it was my understanding you simply bailed on those.

Re: linux-next: add utrace tree

2010-01-27 Thread Steven Rostedt
[ Added Arjan ] On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 02:43 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Peter Zijlstra wrote: Right, so you're going to love uprobes, which does exactly that. The current proposal is overwriting the target instruction with an INT3 and injecting an extra vma into

Re: linux-next: add utrace tree

2010-01-27 Thread H. Peter Anvin
On 01/27/2010 02:43 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Peter Zijlstra wrote: Right, so you're going to love uprobes, which does exactly that. The current proposal is overwriting the target instruction with an INT3 and injecting an extra vma into the target process's address

Re: linux-next: add utrace tree

2010-01-27 Thread Jim Keniston
On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 09:54 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: ... I think the best solution for user probes (by far) is to use a simplified in-kernel instruction emulator for the few common probes instruction. (Kprobes already partially decodes x86 instructions to make it safe to apply

KONYA'NIN EN B�Y�K FİRMA REHBERİNE KAYIT OLUN

2010-01-27 Thread B�Y�K KONYA FİRMA REHBERİ
KONYANIN EN BUYUK FiRMA REHBERiNE KAYIT OLUN www.buyukkonyafirmarehberi.com