From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932282AbWFURPV (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jun 2006 13:15:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932271AbWFURPV (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jun 2006 13:15:21 -0400 Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.149]:55005 "EHLO e31.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932282AbWFURPT (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jun 2006 13:15:19 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:15:18 -0700 From: Mike Grundy To: Martin Schwidefsky Cc: jan.glauber@de.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, systemtap@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] kprobes for s390 architecture Message-ID: <20060621171517.GA7421@localhost.localdomain> Mail-Followup-To: Martin Schwidefsky , jan.glauber@de.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, systemtap@sources.redhat.com References: <20060612131552.GA6647@localhost.localdomain> <1150141217.5495.72.camel@localhost> <20060621042804.GA20300@localhost.localdomain> <1150907920.8295.10.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1150907920.8295.10.camel@localhost> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 06:38:40PM +0200, Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 21:28 -0700, Mike Grundy wrote: > > Hi Martin - This patch implements the suggestions from your review. There were > > a couple points I wanted to go over: > > > There are some more instructions missing that need fixup: > > > "brxh" 0x84??????, "brxle" 0x85??????, "brc" 0xa7?4????, > > > "brct" 0xa7?6????, "brctg" 0xa7?7????, "bctgr" 0xb946????, > > > "brxhg" 0xec????????44 and "brxlg" 0xec??????45. > > Since all of these are relative branches, and they don't save the psw, the > > standard clean up of adjusting the original psw by the offset from the out of > > line address after single step. Unless I'm just being dense :-) > > All of these are conditional branches, if the branch is not taken you > have to do a cleanup. The reason I have a special cleanup for the other branches is the easy way to tell if the branch wasn't taken is the pswa = orig pswa + instruction length. The relative branches get cleaned up the same way if the branch was taken or not, pswa = probe_addr + (out of line end psw - out of line start psw). These are all relative branches and while they need cleanup, they don't get treated differently based on the branch status. > You misunderstood me here. I'm not talking about storing the same piece > of data to memory on each processor. I'm talking about isolating all > other cpus so that the initiating cpu can store the breakpoint to memory Yep, I misunderstood that. The serialization is the point, not the replacement of a word in memory. -- Thanks Mike