From: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@engr.sgi.com>,
Rusty Lynch <rusty@linux.intel.com>,
"Lynch, Rusty" <rusty.lynch@intel.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, prasanna@in.ibm.com,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Keshavamurthy, Anil S" <anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Only process_die notifier in ia64_do_page_fault if KPROBES is configured.
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 23:38:08 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200508310138.09841.ak@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <B8E391BBE9FE384DAA4C5C003888BE6F0443A9A1@scsmsx401.amr.corp.intel.com>
On Wednesday 31 August 2005 01:05, Luck, Tony wrote:
> >Please do not generate any code if the feature cannot ever be
> >used (CONFIG_KPROBES off). With this patch we still have lots of
> >unnecessary code being executed on each page fault.
>
> I can (eventually) wrap this call inside the #ifdef CONFIG_KPROBES.
At least the original die notifiers were designed as a generic debugger
interface, not a kprobes specific thing. So I don't think it's a good idea.
Given most debuggers don't need the early page fault hook and it's
mostly needed for a special case in kprobes, but it doesn't seem nice to only
offer a subset of the hooks with specific config options.
Also with the inline the test should be essentially a single test of
a global variable and jump. Hardly a big performance issue, no?
-Andi
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>
Cc: "Christoph Lameter" <clameter@engr.sgi.com>,
"Rusty Lynch" <rusty@linux.intel.com>,
"Lynch, Rusty" <rusty.lynch@intel.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, prasanna@in.ibm.com,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Keshavamurthy, Anil S" <anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Only process_die notifier in ia64_do_page_fault if KPROBES is configured.
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 01:38:08 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200508310138.09841.ak@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <B8E391BBE9FE384DAA4C5C003888BE6F0443A9A1@scsmsx401.amr.corp.intel.com>
On Wednesday 31 August 2005 01:05, Luck, Tony wrote:
> >Please do not generate any code if the feature cannot ever be
> >used (CONFIG_KPROBES off). With this patch we still have lots of
> >unnecessary code being executed on each page fault.
>
> I can (eventually) wrap this call inside the #ifdef CONFIG_KPROBES.
At least the original die notifiers were designed as a generic debugger
interface, not a kprobes specific thing. So I don't think it's a good idea.
Given most debuggers don't need the early page fault hook and it's
mostly needed for a special case in kprobes, but it doesn't seem nice to only
offer a subset of the hooks with specific config options.
Also with the inline the test should be essentially a single test of
a global variable and jump. Hardly a big performance issue, no?
-Andi
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@engr.sgi.com>,
Rusty Lynch <rusty@linux.intel.com>,
"Lynch, Rusty" <rusty.lynch@intel.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, prasanna@in.ibm.com,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Keshavamurthy, Anil S" <anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Only process_die notifier in ia64_do_page_fault if KPROBES is configured.
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 01:38:08 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200508310138.09841.ak@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <B8E391BBE9FE384DAA4C5C003888BE6F0443A9A1@scsmsx401.amr.corp.intel.com>
On Wednesday 31 August 2005 01:05, Luck, Tony wrote:
> >Please do not generate any code if the feature cannot ever be
> >used (CONFIG_KPROBES off). With this patch we still have lots of
> >unnecessary code being executed on each page fault.
>
> I can (eventually) wrap this call inside the #ifdef CONFIG_KPROBES.
At least the original die notifiers were designed as a generic debugger
interface, not a kprobes specific thing. So I don't think it's a good idea.
Given most debuggers don't need the early page fault hook and it's
mostly needed for a special case in kprobes, but it doesn't seem nice to only
offer a subset of the hooks with specific config options.
Also with the inline the test should be essentially a single test of
a global variable and jump. Hardly a big performance issue, no?
-Andi
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-08-30 23:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-08-25 20:14 [PATCH] Only process_die notifier in ia64_do_page_fault if KPROBES Christoph Lameter
2005-08-25 20:14 ` [PATCH] Only process_die notifier in ia64_do_page_fault if KPROBES is configured Christoph Lameter
2005-08-30 23:05 ` Luck, Tony
2005-08-30 23:05 ` Luck, Tony
2005-08-30 23:05 ` Luck, Tony
2005-08-30 23:38 ` Andi Kleen [this message]
2005-08-30 23:38 ` Andi Kleen
2005-08-30 23:38 ` Andi Kleen
2005-08-30 23:54 ` [PATCH] Only process_die notifier in ia64_do_page_fault if Christoph Lameter
2005-08-30 23:54 ` [PATCH] Only process_die notifier in ia64_do_page_fault if KPROBES is configured Christoph Lameter
2005-08-30 23:54 ` Christoph Lameter
2005-08-31 0:05 ` Andi Kleen
2005-08-31 0:05 ` Andi Kleen
2005-08-31 0:05 ` Andi Kleen
2005-08-30 23:56 ` [PATCH] Only process_die notifier in ia64_do_page_fault if David S. Miller
2005-08-30 23:56 ` [PATCH] Only process_die notifier in ia64_do_page_fault if KPROBES is configured., Re: [PATCH] Only process_die notifier in ia64_do_page_fault if KPROBES is configured David S. Miller, Andi Kleen
2005-08-30 23:56 ` David S. Miller
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-08-26 22:46 Rusty Lynch
2005-08-26 23:05 ` Re:[PATCH] Only process_die notifier in ia64_do_page_fault if KPROBES Christoph Lameter
2005-08-27 0:24 ` [PATCH] Only process_die notifier in ia64_do_page_fault if KPROBES is configured Andi Kleen
2005-08-27 0:24 ` Andi Kleen
2005-08-27 0:24 ` Andi Kleen
2005-08-30 0:19 ` Rusty Lynch
2005-08-30 0:19 ` Rusty Lynch
2005-08-30 0:19 ` Rusty Lynch
2005-08-30 1:08 ` Andi Kleen
2005-08-30 1:08 ` Andi Kleen
2005-08-30 1:08 ` Andi Kleen
2005-08-30 3:28 ` Christoph Lameter
2005-08-30 3:28 ` Christoph Lameter
2005-08-30 11:18 ` Matthew Wilcox
2005-08-30 11:18 ` Matthew Wilcox
2005-08-30 11:18 ` Matthew Wilcox
2005-09-19 18:22 ` Christoph Lameter
2005-09-19 18:22 ` Christoph Lameter
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200508310138.09841.ak@suse.de \
--to=ak@suse.de \
--cc=anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com \
--cc=clameter@engr.sgi.com \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=prasanna@in.ibm.com \
--cc=rusty.lynch@intel.com \
--cc=rusty@linux.intel.com \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.