Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932716AbXBWP6v (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:58:51 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932719AbXBWP6v (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:58:51 -0500 Received: from [198.99.130.12] ([198.99.130.12]:38600 "EHLO saraswathi.solana.com" rhost-flags-FAIL-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932716AbXBWP6u (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:58:50 -0500 Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:50:31 -0500 From: Jeff Dike To: Roland McGrath Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [PATCH] UML utrace support, step 1 Message-ID: <20070223155031.GD5198@ccure.user-mode-linux.org> References: <20070221181811.GA5845@ccure.user-mode-linux.org> <20070223031903.A55241800E4@magilla.sf.frob.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070223031903.A55241800E4@magilla.sf.frob.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1817 Lines: 38 On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 07:19:03PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote: > Your replacement patch still has utrace_regset stuff in it, so it doesn't > compile without the later patches in the series. Try applying only > utrace-tracehook.patch from the series, then get it to build and make your > utrace-tracehook-um.patch. Then apply only utrace-regset.patch on top of > that, and get that building to make utrace-regset-um.patch. Then apply > utrace-core.patch and utrace-ptrace-compat.patch to get ptrace finally > working again and make utrace-ptrace-compat-um.patch. Ah, I was building with all of utrace, and observing that it didn't compile without all the bits in that patch. I'll back out the bits of utrace I don't need yet and send another patch. > You'll still find this insufficient when you get to biarch support (x86_64). > At least you'll have to add another one elsewhere too, and make > utrace_native_view refer to both. OK, I'll deal with that when I get to it. > Ok. We do seem to have a problem when the host has CONFIG_PREEMPT=y, which > makes me suspect it might be a race problem that could also hit with enough > hardware parallelism. If you get a chance to try that and can characterize > the way it misbehaves at the level of specific ptrace/wait calls, that > would be a great help. Otherwise I'll try to look into it when I get some > time, but it's falling down the queue a bit since people don't seem too put > out about it right now. I'll turn on preempt and see what happens. Jeff -- Work email - jdike at linux dot intel dot com - 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/