On 04/14, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Fri, 2012-04-06 at 00:20 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > Hello. > > > > Not for inclusion yet, only for the early review. > > > > I didn't even try to test these changes, and I am not expert > > in this area. And even _if_ this code is correct, I need to > > re-split these changes anyway, update the changelogs, etc. > > > > Questions: > > > > - does it make sense? > > Maybe, upside is reclaiming that int from task_struct, downside is that > down_write :/ It would be very good not to have to do that. Yes, down_write() is pessimization, I agree. > Nor do I > really see how that works. > > > - can it work or I missed something "in general" ? > > So we insert in the rb-tree before we take mmap_sem, this means we can > hit a non-uprobe int3 and still find a uprobe there, no? Yes, but unless I miss something this is "off-topic", this can happen with or without these changes. If find_uprobe() succeeds we assume that this bp was inserted by uprobe. Perhaps uprobe_register() should not "ignore" -EXIST from install_breakpoint()->is_swbp_insn(), or perhaps we can add UPROBE_SHARED_BP. Oleg. -- 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>