* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2011-01-26 11:20:39]:
> On Wed, 2011-01-26 at 14:33 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> >
> >
> > I actually dont like to release the write_lock and then reacquire it.
> > write_opcode, which is called thro install_uprobe, i.e to insert the
> > actual breakpoint instruction takes a read lock on the mmap_sem.
> > Hence uprobe_mmap gets called in context with write lock on mmap_sem
> > held, I had to release it before calling install_uprobe.
>
> Ah, right, so that's going to give you a head-ache ;-)
>
> The moment you release this mmap_sem, the map you're going to install
> the probe point in can go away.
>
> The only way to make this work seems to start by holding the mmap_sem
> for writing and make a breakpoint install function that assumes its
> taken and doesn't try to acquire it again.
>
Yes, this can be done.
I would have to do something like this in register_uprobe().
list_for_each_entry_safe(mm, tmpmm, &tmp_list, uprobes_list) {
down_read(&mm->map_sem);
if (!install_uprobe(mm, uprobe))
ret = 0;
up_read(&mm->map_sem);
list_del(&mm->uprobes_list);
mmput(mm);
}
Agree that this is much better than what we have now.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>