Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 10:04:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
cc: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>, <prasad@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 02/11] x86 architecture implementation of Hardware
 Breakpoint interfaces
In-Reply-To: <20090313034301.GE11355@elte.hu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0903130959400.2898-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1178
Lines: 29

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> The core issue being discussed is the debug register allocation 
> and scheduling model though, and you have not directly commented 
> on that.
> 
> My argument in a nutshell is that a bottom-up for user + 
> top-down for kernel use static allocator with no dynamic 
> scheduling will get us most of the benefits with a tenth of the 
> complexity.

Take this even farther: We shouldn't restrict userspace to bottom-up
register allocation.  With very little additional effort we can
virtualize the debug registers; then userspace can allocate them in
whatever order it wants and still end up using the physical registers
in bottom-up order (or top-down, which is the order used by the current
patches).

After all, there's nothing to prevent programs other than gdb from 
using ptrace, and there's no guarantee that gdb will continue to 
allocate registers in increasing order.

Alan Stern

--
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/