From: Oleg Nesterov
uprobe_trace_print() and uprobe_perf_print() need to pass the additional
info to call_fetch() methods, currently there is no simple way to do this.
current->utask looks like a natural place to hold this info, but we need
to allocate it before handler_chain().
This is a bit
From: Oleg Nesterov o...@redhat.com
uprobe_trace_print() and uprobe_perf_print() need to pass the additional
info to call_fetch() methods, currently there is no simple way to do this.
current-utask looks like a natural place to hold this info, but we need
to allocate it before handler_chain().
From: Oleg Nesterov
uprobe_trace_print() and uprobe_perf_print() need to pass the additional
info to call_fetch() methods, currently there is no simple way to do this.
current->utask looks like a natural place to hold this info, but we need
to allocate it before handler_chain().
This is a bit
From: Oleg Nesterov o...@redhat.com
uprobe_trace_print() and uprobe_perf_print() need to pass the additional
info to call_fetch() methods, currently there is no simple way to do this.
current-utask looks like a natural place to hold this info, but we need
to allocate it before handler_chain().
(2013/12/09 15:20), Namhyung Kim wrote:
> From: Oleg Nesterov
>
> uprobe_trace_print() and uprobe_perf_print() need to pass the additional
> info to call_fetch() methods, currently there is no simple way to do this.
>
> current->utask looks like a natural place to hold this info, but we need
>
(2013/12/13 4:46), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 12/12, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>>
>> (2013/12/12 3:11), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>> On 12/11, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
But it could skip the handler_chain silently. It could confuse users
why their probe doesn't hit as expected.
>>>
>>> No,
On 12/12, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>
> (2013/12/12 3:11), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 12/11, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> >>
> >> But it could skip the handler_chain silently. It could confuse users
> >> why their probe doesn't hit as expected.
> >
> > No, we will restart the same (probed)
On 12/12, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
(2013/12/12 3:11), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 12/11, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
But it could skip the handler_chain silently. It could confuse users
why their probe doesn't hit as expected.
No, we will restart the same (probed) instruction, handle_swbp()
(2013/12/09 15:20), Namhyung Kim wrote:
From: Oleg Nesterov o...@redhat.com
uprobe_trace_print() and uprobe_perf_print() need to pass the additional
info to call_fetch() methods, currently there is no simple way to do this.
current-utask looks like a natural place to hold this info, but we
(2013/12/13 4:46), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 12/12, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
(2013/12/12 3:11), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 12/11, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
But it could skip the handler_chain silently. It could confuse users
why their probe doesn't hit as expected.
No, we will restart the same
(2013/12/12 3:11), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 12/11, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>>
>> (2013/12/11 0:57), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>> On 12/10, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
and isn't it better to increment
miss-hit counter of the uprobe?
>>>
>>> What do you mean? This is not miss-hit and ->utask
On 12/11, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>
> (2013/12/11 0:57), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 12/10, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> >>
> >> and isn't it better to increment
> >> miss-hit counter of the uprobe?
> >
> > What do you mean? This is not miss-hit and ->utask == NULL is quite normal.
>
> But it could
On 12/11, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
(2013/12/11 0:57), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 12/10, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
and isn't it better to increment
miss-hit counter of the uprobe?
What do you mean? This is not miss-hit and -utask == NULL is quite normal.
But it could skip the
(2013/12/12 3:11), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 12/11, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
(2013/12/11 0:57), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 12/10, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
and isn't it better to increment
miss-hit counter of the uprobe?
What do you mean? This is not miss-hit and -utask == NULL is quite normal.
(2013/12/11 0:57), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 12/10, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>>
>> (2013/12/09 15:20), Namhyung Kim wrote:
>>> From: Oleg Nesterov
>>>
>>> uprobe_trace_print() and uprobe_perf_print() need to pass the additional
>>> info to call_fetch() methods, currently there is no simple way to
Hi Oleg,
On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:57:44 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 12/10, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>>
>> (2013/12/09 15:20), Namhyung Kim wrote:
>> > From: Oleg Nesterov
>> >
>> > uprobe_trace_print() and uprobe_perf_print() need to pass the additional
>> > info to call_fetch() methods,
On 12/10, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>
> (2013/12/09 15:20), Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > From: Oleg Nesterov
> >
> > uprobe_trace_print() and uprobe_perf_print() need to pass the additional
> > info to call_fetch() methods, currently there is no simple way to do this.
> >
> > current->utask looks like a
(2013/12/09 15:20), Namhyung Kim wrote:
> From: Oleg Nesterov
>
> uprobe_trace_print() and uprobe_perf_print() need to pass the additional
> info to call_fetch() methods, currently there is no simple way to do this.
>
> current->utask looks like a natural place to hold this info, but we need
>
Hi Oleg,
On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:57:44 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 12/10, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
(2013/12/09 15:20), Namhyung Kim wrote:
From: Oleg Nesterov o...@redhat.com
uprobe_trace_print() and uprobe_perf_print() need to pass the additional
info to call_fetch() methods,
(2013/12/11 0:57), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 12/10, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
(2013/12/09 15:20), Namhyung Kim wrote:
From: Oleg Nesterov o...@redhat.com
uprobe_trace_print() and uprobe_perf_print() need to pass the additional
info to call_fetch() methods, currently there is no simple way to do
(2013/12/09 15:20), Namhyung Kim wrote:
From: Oleg Nesterov o...@redhat.com
uprobe_trace_print() and uprobe_perf_print() need to pass the additional
info to call_fetch() methods, currently there is no simple way to do this.
current-utask looks like a natural place to hold this info, but we
On 12/10, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
(2013/12/09 15:20), Namhyung Kim wrote:
From: Oleg Nesterov o...@redhat.com
uprobe_trace_print() and uprobe_perf_print() need to pass the additional
info to call_fetch() methods, currently there is no simple way to do this.
current-utask looks like a
From: Oleg Nesterov
uprobe_trace_print() and uprobe_perf_print() need to pass the additional
info to call_fetch() methods, currently there is no simple way to do this.
current->utask looks like a natural place to hold this info, but we need
to allocate it before handler_chain().
This is a bit
From: Oleg Nesterov o...@redhat.com
uprobe_trace_print() and uprobe_perf_print() need to pass the additional
info to call_fetch() methods, currently there is no simple way to do this.
current-utask looks like a natural place to hold this info, but we need
to allocate it before handler_chain().
From: Oleg Nesterov
uprobe_trace_print() and uprobe_perf_print() need to pass the additional
info to call_fetch() methods, currently there is no simple way to do this.
current->utask looks like a natural place to hold this info, but we need
to allocate it before handler_chain().
This is a bit
From: Oleg Nesterov o...@redhat.com
uprobe_trace_print() and uprobe_perf_print() need to pass the additional
info to call_fetch() methods, currently there is no simple way to do this.
current-utask looks like a natural place to hold this info, but we need
to allocate it before handler_chain().
26 matches
Mail list logo