Re: [PATCH -tip v3&10 02/18] kprobes: Introduce generic insn_slot framework

[Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@redhat.com>]

Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Masami Hiramatsu (mhiramat@redhat.com) wrote:
>> Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>>> Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>>>> * Masami Hiramatsu (mhiramat@redhat.com) wrote:
>>>>> Make insn_slot framework support various size slots.
>>>>> Current insn_slot just supports one-size instruction buffer slot. However,
>>>>> kprobes jump optimization needs larger size buffers.
>>>>
>>>> OK, so you end up having one insn slot cache for kprobes and one insn
>>>> slot (eventually) for the static jump patching (which needs larger
>>>> instruction slots than kprobes). That seems like a good way to ensure
>>>> you do not use more memory than necessary.
>>>>
>>>> We could possibly go even further and automatically use the right insn
>>>> slot cache given the size of the instruction entry that must be added (a
>>>> bit like the memory allocator which have different pools for each
>>>> allocation order).
>>>
>>> Sure, that will be simpler interface.
>>>
>>>> Possibly that using the terminology of "memory pools" rather than
>>>> "cache" could be a better fit too. So what this really becomes is an
>>>> instruction slot allocator and garbage collector.
>>>
>>> Ah, right. It would be better to rename kprobe_insn_pool() :)
>>
>> Hmm, I tried it. And finally, I found that this doesn't help
>> to simplify code... Maybe it is better to postpone it until
>> another user needs this feature.
> 
> I guess it's a tradeoff between the genericity of the API you provide
> and the complexity of the code that provides this API. So as you say,
> maybe it's better to wait until more users appears before improving the
> API.

OK, I'll hold that generalizing patch until that. :)

Thank you,
-- 
Masami Hiramatsu
e-mail: mhiramat@redhat.com