From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@in.ibm.com>,
Jim Keniston <jkenisto@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@infradead.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Anton Arapov <anton@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/6] uprobes: kill uprobes_srcu/uprobe_srcu_id
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 20:37:18 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120420183718.GA2236@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1334916861.2463.50.camel@laptop>
On 04/20, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2012-04-16 at 23:47 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > (And perhaps we can stop right here? I mean how often this can
> > slow down the debugger which installs int3 in the same mm?)
> >
> > Now we need to clear MMF_HAS_UPROBE somehowe, when the last
> > uprobe goes away. Lets ignore uprobe_map/unmap for simplicity.
> >
> > - We add another flag, MMF_UPROBE_RECALC, it is set by
> > remove_breakpoint().
> >
> > - We change handle_swbp(). Ignoring all details it does:
> >
> > if (find_uprobe(vaddr))
> > process_uprobe();
> > else if (test_bit(MMF_HAS_UPROBE) && test_bit(MMF_UPROBE_RECALC))
> > recalc_mmf_uprobe_flag();
> >
> > where recalc_mmf_uprobe_flag() checks all vmas and either
> > clears both flags or MMF_UPROBE_RECALC only.
> >
> > This is the really slow O(n) path, but it can only happen after
> > unregister, and only if we hit another non-uprobe breakpoint
> > in the same mm.
> >
> > Something like this. What do you think?
>
> I think I can live with the simple set MMF_HAS_UPROBE and leave it at
> that.
Sure, I agree.
A false positive MMF_HAS_UPROBE can only slow down the non-uprobe
int3 in the same ->mm, I think we can tolerate this.
> The better optimization seems to be to not install breakpoints
> when ->filter() excludes the task..
Ah, this is another story. And I agree this is more important.
So far I do not understand what we should do. Of course, it would
be simple to add the filtering when we install the breakpoint but
I don't think it is that simple, even if we ignore the nasty
complications with multiple consumers with different filters.
Say, a user wants to probe /sbin/init only. What if init forks?
We should remove breakpoints from child->mm somehow.
And then we also need the filtering in uprobe_mmap() at least.
But yes, I agree, it would be very nice to do this.
Oleg.
--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@in.ibm.com>,
Jim Keniston <jkenisto@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@infradead.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Anton Arapov <anton@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/6] uprobes: kill uprobes_srcu/uprobe_srcu_id
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 20:37:18 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120420183718.GA2236@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1334916861.2463.50.camel@laptop>
On 04/20, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2012-04-16 at 23:47 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > (And perhaps we can stop right here? I mean how often this can
> > slow down the debugger which installs int3 in the same mm?)
> >
> > Now we need to clear MMF_HAS_UPROBE somehowe, when the last
> > uprobe goes away. Lets ignore uprobe_map/unmap for simplicity.
> >
> > - We add another flag, MMF_UPROBE_RECALC, it is set by
> > remove_breakpoint().
> >
> > - We change handle_swbp(). Ignoring all details it does:
> >
> > if (find_uprobe(vaddr))
> > process_uprobe();
> > else if (test_bit(MMF_HAS_UPROBE) && test_bit(MMF_UPROBE_RECALC))
> > recalc_mmf_uprobe_flag();
> >
> > where recalc_mmf_uprobe_flag() checks all vmas and either
> > clears both flags or MMF_UPROBE_RECALC only.
> >
> > This is the really slow O(n) path, but it can only happen after
> > unregister, and only if we hit another non-uprobe breakpoint
> > in the same mm.
> >
> > Something like this. What do you think?
>
> I think I can live with the simple set MMF_HAS_UPROBE and leave it at
> that.
Sure, I agree.
A false positive MMF_HAS_UPROBE can only slow down the non-uprobe
int3 in the same ->mm, I think we can tolerate this.
> The better optimization seems to be to not install breakpoints
> when ->filter() excludes the task..
Ah, this is another story. And I agree this is more important.
So far I do not understand what we should do. Of course, it would
be simple to add the filtering when we install the breakpoint but
I don't think it is that simple, even if we ignore the nasty
complications with multiple consumers with different filters.
Say, a user wants to probe /sbin/init only. What if init forks?
We should remove breakpoints from child->mm somehow.
And then we also need the filtering in uprobe_mmap() at least.
But yes, I agree, it would be very nice to do this.
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-04-20 18:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 76+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-04-05 22:20 [RFC 0/6] uprobes: kill uprobes_srcu/uprobe_srcu_id Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-05 22:20 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-05 22:20 ` [PATCH 1/6] uprobes: introduce find_active_uprobe() Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-05 22:20 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-05 22:21 ` [PATCH 2/6] uprobes: introduce is_swbp_at_addr_fast() Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-05 22:21 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-16 10:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-04-16 10:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-04-16 14:44 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-16 14:44 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-16 14:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-04-16 14:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-04-16 15:34 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-16 15:34 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-17 10:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-04-17 10:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-04-17 17:09 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-17 17:09 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-17 19:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-04-17 19:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-04-05 22:21 ` [PATCH 3/6] uprobes: teach find_active_uprobe() to provide the "is_swbp" info Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-05 22:21 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-05 22:21 ` [PATCH 4/6] uprobes: change register_for_each_vma() to take mm->mmap_sem for writing Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-05 22:21 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-05 22:22 ` [PATCH 5/6] uprobes: teach handle_swbp() to rely on "is_swbp" rather than uprobes_srcu Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-05 22:22 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-05 22:22 ` [PATCH 6/6] uprobes: kill uprobes_srcu/uprobe_srcu_id Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-05 22:22 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-14 11:16 ` [RFC 0/6] " Ingo Molnar
2012-04-14 11:16 ` Ingo Molnar
2012-04-16 11:31 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2012-04-16 11:31 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2012-04-16 14:41 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-16 14:41 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-25 12:52 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2012-04-25 12:52 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2012-04-25 14:22 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-25 14:22 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-14 13:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-04-14 13:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-04-14 20:52 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-14 20:52 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-15 10:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-04-15 10:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-04-15 19:53 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-15 19:53 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-15 21:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-04-15 21:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-04-15 23:44 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-15 23:44 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-16 10:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-04-16 10:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-04-16 21:47 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-16 21:47 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-20 10:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-04-20 10:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-04-20 10:16 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2012-04-20 10:16 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2012-04-20 18:58 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-20 18:58 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-20 18:37 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2012-04-20 18:37 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-23 7:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-04-23 7:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-04-23 7:24 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2012-04-23 7:24 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2012-04-23 7:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-04-23 7:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-04-23 17:29 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-23 17:29 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-23 19:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-04-23 19:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-04-23 20:50 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-23 20:50 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-23 21:25 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-04-23 21:25 ` Oleg Nesterov
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=20120420183718.GA2236@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=acme@infradead.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ananth@in.ibm.com \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=anton@redhat.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=jkenisto@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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.