Re: [PATCH 3/5] hw-breakpoints: Rewrite the hw-breakpoints layer on top of perf counters

[Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 07:55:40PM +0530, K.Prasad wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 10:29:25AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > This patch rebase the implementation of the breakpoints API on top of
> > perf counters instances.
> > 
> > The core breakpoint API has changed a bit:
> > 
> > - register_kernel_hw_breakpoint() now takes a cpu as a parameter. For
> >   now it doesn't support all cpu wide breakpoints but this may be
> >   implemented soon.
> 
> Is there a reason why perf doesn't support counters effective on all
> CPUs (and all processes)?
> Atleast, it is vital for debugging aspects of hw-breakpoints...say to
> answer "Who all did a 'write' on the kernel variable that turned corrupt", etc.
> 
> The implementation to iteratively register a breakpoint on all CPUs would
> (as in trace_ksym.c) result in unclean semantics for the end user, when, a
> register_kernel_<> request fails on a given CPU and all previously
> registered breakpoints have to be reverted (but the user might have
> received a few breakpoint triggers by then as a result of the successful
> ones...i.e. register request fails, but still received 'some' output).


(Please shrink the end of the message if you don't answer in further parts.
I'm especially a bad example of what not to do :-)

Yeah it would be very convenient to have that. Is it possible considering
the current internal design of perf?