On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 08:57:38PM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote: > at 1:25 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 07:58:40PM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote: > >>> With that CR3 trickery, we can rid ourselves of the text_mutex > >>> requirement, since concurrent text_poke is 'safe'. That would clean up > >>> the kgdb code quite a bit. > >> > >> I don’t know. I’m somewhat worried with multiple mechanisms potentially > >> changing the same code at the same time - and maybe ending up with some > >> mess. > > > > kgdb only pokes INT3, that should be pretty safe. > > Maybe I misunderstand your point. If you want me to get rid of text_mutex > completely, No, just the ugly things kgdb does with it.
