On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 16:39 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 01/15/2010 11:50 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > As previously stated, I think poking at a process's address space is an > > utter no-go. > > > > Why not reserve an address space range for this, somewhere near the top > of memory? It doesn't have to be populated if it isn't used.
Because I think poking at a process's address space like that is gross. Also, if its fixed size you're imposing artificial limits on the number of possible probes.
