Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754080Ab0ATTcO (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:32:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753768Ab0ATTcO (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:32:14 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:42712 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751924Ab0ATTcN (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:32:13 -0500 Message-ID: <4B575A1C.6010206@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:31:40 -0500 From: Masami Hiramatsu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091209 Fedora/3.0-3.fc11 Thunderbird/3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Frederic Weisbecker CC: Jim Keniston , Avi Kivity , Pekka Enberg , Srikar Dronamraju , Peter Zijlstra , ananth@in.ibm.com, Ingo Molnar , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , utrace-devel , Maneesh Soni , Mark Wielaard , LKML Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/7] User Space Breakpoint Assistance Layer (UBP) References: <4B544F8E.1080603@redhat.com> <84144f021001180413w76a8ca2axb0b9f07ee4dea67e@mail.gmail.com> <4B545146.3080001@redhat.com> <20100118124419.GC1628@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <84144f021001180451k2a84f17x3dc24796fea986c9@mail.gmail.com> <4B5459CA.9060603@redhat.com> <4B545ACF.40203@cs.helsinki.fi> <1263852957.2266.38.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4B556855.6040800@redhat.com> <1263923265.4998.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20100119180610.GA11005@nowhere> In-Reply-To: <20100119180610.GA11005@nowhere> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1788 Lines: 47 Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 09:47:45AM -0800, Jim Keniston wrote: >>> Do you have plans for a variant >>> that's completely in userspace? >> >> I don't know of any such plans, but I'd be interested to read more of >> your thoughts here. As I understand it, you've suggested replacing the >> probed instruction with a jump into an instrumentation vma (the XOL >> area, or something similar). Masami has demonstrated -- through his >> djprobes enhancement to kprobes -- that this can be done for many x86 >> instructions. >> >> What does the code in the jumped-to vma do? Is the instrumentation code >> that corresponds to the uprobe handlers encoded in an ad hoc .so? > > > Once the instrumentation is requested by a process that is not the > instrumented one, this looks impossible to set a uprobe without a > minimal voluntary collaboration from the instrumented process > (events sent through IPC or whatever). So that looks too limited, > this is not anymore a true dynamic uprobe. Agreed. Since uprobe's handler must be running in kernel, we need to jump into kernel space anyway. "Booster" (just skips a single-stepping(trap) exception) may be useful for improving uprobe performance. And also as Andi said, using jump instead of int3 in userspace has 2GB address space limitation. It's not a problem for kernel inside, but a big problem in userspace. Thank you, -- Masami Hiramatsu Software Engineer Hitachi Computer Products (America), Inc. Software Solutions Division e-mail: mhiramat@redhat.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/