* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2011-11-24 15:13:37]:
> On Thu, 2011-11-24 at 19:17 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2011-11-23 19:10:12]:
> >
> > > On Fri, 2011-11-18 at 16:37 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > > > + ret = install_breakpoint(vma->vm_mm, uprobe);
> > > > + if (ret == -EEXIST) {
> > > > + atomic_inc(&vma->vm_mm->mm_uprobes_count);
> > > > + ret = 0;
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > Aren't you double counting that probe position here? The one that raced
> > > you to inserting it will also have incremented that counter, no?
> > >
> >
> > No we arent.
> > Because register_uprobe can never race with mmap_uprobe and register
> > before mmap_uprobe registers .(Once we start mmap_region,
> > register_uprobe waits for the read_lock of mmap_sem.)
>
> Still doesn't make any sense. Since you don't increment on success, one
> has to assume install_breakpoint() will cause an increment. Therefore,
> when we encounter -EEXIST we'll already have accounted for this
> mm,inode,offset combination.
>
In the success case, install_breakpoint itself does the increment.
We cant allow install_breakpoint to increment in EEXIST case always
because doing that in register_uprobe context would increment which is
wrong.
> But I'll have another look at it, maybe I'm missing something
> obvious :-)
>
> > And we badly need this for mmap_uprobe case. Because when we do mremap,
> > or vma_adjust(), we do a munmap_uprobe() followed by mmap_uprobe() which
> > would have decremented the count but not removed it. So when we do a
> > mmap_uprobe, we need to increment the count.
>
> Well I see why the count needs to be correct, that's not the issue.
Okay ..
--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>