Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932133AbWIVTNy (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Sep 2006 15:13:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932177AbWIVTNy (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Sep 2006 15:13:54 -0400 Received: from opersys.com ([64.40.108.71]:15374 "EHLO www.opersys.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932169AbWIVTNx (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Sep 2006 15:13:53 -0400 Message-ID: <45143850.3000005@opersys.com> Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 15:24:00 -0400 From: Karim Yaghmour Reply-To: karim@opersys.com Organization: Opersys inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.8.0.6) Gecko/20060804 Fedora/1.0.4-0.5.1.fc5 SeaMonkey/1.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mathieu Desnoyers CC: Ingo Molnar , Martin Bligh , "Frank Ch. Eigler" , Masami Hiramatsu , prasanna@in.ibm.com, Andrew Morton , Paul Mundt , linux-kernel , Jes Sorensen , Tom Zanussi , Richard J Moore , Michel Dagenais , Christoph Hellwig , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Thomas Gleixner , William Cohen , ltt-dev@shafik.org, systemtap@sources.redhat.com, Alan Cox Subject: Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.5 for Linux 2.6.17 (with probe management) References: <20060921160009.GA30115@Krystal> <20060921160656.GA24774@elte.hu> <20060921214248.GA10097@Krystal> <20060922070714.GB4167@elte.hu> <20060922150810.GB20839@Krystal> <45140E33.9030509@opersys.com> <20060922161353.GA1569@Krystal> <45141759.8060600@opersys.com> <20060922180654.GA12645@Krystal> In-Reply-To: <20060922180654.GA12645@Krystal> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1112 Lines: 32 Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > Here is the implementation :-) Trigger happy :) > To change it, we can dynamically overwrite the __mark_near_jump_select_##name > value (a byte) to (__mark_jump_call_##name - __mark_near_jump_##name). Hmm... I don't know if you won't still need to resort to int3 and then overwrite the byte. From my understanding it sounds like you wouldn't but that's where Richard's insight on the errata stuff might come in handy. Have you actually tried to run this code by any chance? *If* it did work, I think this might just mean that you don't need either kprobes or djprobes. > So we have one architecture specific optimisation within the architecture > agnostic marking mechanism. That would seem reasonable, I think. You might want to test out your mechanism, get confirmation from Richard and then post an update to your patches. Karim - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/