Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754031Ab0AQO4j (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jan 2010 09:56:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753995Ab0AQO4i (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jan 2010 09:56:38 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:59430 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753711Ab0AQO4i (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jan 2010 09:56:38 -0500 Message-ID: <4B532508.4000806@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:56:08 +0200 From: Avi Kivity User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091209 Fedora/3.0-4.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Zijlstra CC: ananth@in.ibm.com, Jim Keniston , Srikar Dronamraju , Ingo Molnar , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , utrace-devel , Frederic Weisbecker , Masami Hiramatsu , Maneesh Soni , Mark Wielaard , LKML Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/7] User Space Breakpoint Assistance Layer (UBP) References: <20100111122521.22050.3654.sendpatchset@srikar.in.ibm.com> <20100111122529.22050.32596.sendpatchset@srikar.in.ibm.com> <1263467289.4244.288.camel@laptop> <1263498366.4875.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1263546228.4244.343.camel@laptop> <20100115093831.GC26396@in.ibm.com> <1263549014.4244.374.camel@laptop> <4B53213C.9050303@redhat.com> <1263739939.557.20938.camel@twins> In-Reply-To: <1263739939.557.20938.camel@twins> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1087 Lines: 32 On 01/17/2010 04:52 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 16:39 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > >> On 01/15/2010 11:50 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> >>> As previously stated, I think poking at a process's address space is an >>> utter no-go. >>> >>> >> Why not reserve an address space range for this, somewhere near the top >> of memory? It doesn't have to be populated if it isn't used. >> > Because I think poking at a process's address space like that is gross. > If it's reserved, it's no longer the process' address space. > Also, if its fixed size you're imposing artificial limits on the number > of possible probes. > Obviously we'll need a limit, a uprobe will also take kernel memory, we can't allow people to exhaust it. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -- 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/