Re: [(take 2)patch 0/7] Notify page fault call chain

Robin Holt
2006-04-25T10:15:41Z

On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 11:01:16PM -0700, Keshavamurthy Anil S wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 02:28:24PM -0500, Robin Holt wrote:
> > This set definitely improves things. My timings from last week must
> > have been off. I think I may have still had the notify_die() call in
> > the fault path. This week, I see a 35 nSec slowdown between with/without
> > KRPOBES. Last week, I thought they were roughly equivalent.
> The non-overloaded call chain notification with dynamic registeration/unregistration
> is much better than earlier one. But if you still want to improve the 35 nSec
> slowdown, then the only other alternative is to eliminate the call chain and
> try calling kprobe_exceptions_notify() directly with the kprobe_running() around it.
> i.e
> static inline int notify_page_fault(enum die_val val, const char *str,
> struct pt_regs *regs, long err, int trap, int sig)

If we do that, can we rename notify_page_fault to something with kprobes in it?