From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@in.ibm.com>
To: Avishay Traeger <atraeger@cs.sunysb.edu>
Cc: prasanna@in.ibm.com, anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com,
davem@davemloft.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: KPROBES: Instrumenting a function's call site
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 22:57:21 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070926172721.GA6598@in.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1190822975.3940.17.camel@localhost>
On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 12:09:35PM -0400, Avishay Traeger wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 14:33 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> > What happens when the "call" is singlestepped is that the instruction
> > pointer is moved to the call target. That explains the lower latency you
> > are seeing. You'll need to do something along the lines I suggested in
> > the earlier mail.
>
> Can you please explain what you mean by this more clearly? I'm not a
> kprobes expert yet. Specifically, using kprobes the way that I did,
> what will the resulting code look like? Also, what do you mean by
> "singlestepped"?
If you single-step (regs->eflags | TF_MASK in i386) on a call instruction,
you'll end up at the call target; ie., after the post_kprobe_handler()
returns, the instruction pointer will point to the first instruction
of foo().
Try printk()ing the instruction pointer(regs) after resume_execution()
in the post_kprobe_handler() in your arch/<arch>/kernel/kprobes.c, you'll
see what I mean.
And when I say singlestepped, I mean executing one instruction under the
architecture specific single step enable flag - the "trap" flag for i386,
the MSR_SE for powerpc, etc. Evidently, this'll mean single-stepping a
single instruction.
Ananth
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-09-26 17:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-09-25 22:12 KPROBES: Instrumenting a function's call site Avishay Traeger
2007-09-26 4:39 ` Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
2007-09-26 9:03 ` Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
2007-09-26 16:09 ` Avishay Traeger
2007-09-26 17:27 ` Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli [this message]
2007-09-26 17:35 ` Avishay Traeger
2007-09-26 16:52 ` Abhishek Sagar
2007-09-26 17:28 ` Keshavamurthy, Anil S
2007-09-26 17:37 ` Avishay Traeger
2007-11-08 19:42 ` Avishay Traeger
2007-11-12 10:27 ` Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
2007-09-26 16:37 ` Abhishek Sagar
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=20070926172721.GA6598@in.ibm.com \
--to=ananth@in.ibm.com \
--cc=anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com \
--cc=atraeger@cs.sunysb.edu \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=prasanna@in.ibm.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.