Re: Is notify_die being overloaded?
- From: Keshavamurthy Anil S <anil.s.keshavamurthy@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 09:50:27 -0700
On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 05:52:10PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
Yes, Kprobes code removed it because, by the time this cpu reads the ia64 instruction
[*] It does not help that IA64 break.b <n> does not store the value of
<n> in cr.iim. All break.b values look like break.b 0. There used
to be code in traps.c to detect this and extract the value of
break.b, but a kprobes patch removed that code.
to decode the break value, at the same time on the other cpu, due to unregister_kprobes()
call, this instruction might be replace with the original instruction. Hence the
reading/decoding the instruction might result in wrong break number. So not a good idea to
decode the instruction.
-Anil
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- References:
- Re: Is notify_die being overloaded?
- From: Robin Holt
- Re: Is notify_die being overloaded?
- From: Keith Owens
- Re: Is notify_die being overloaded?
- Prev by Date: Re: Problems (lockup/hang) with PCI-X slot on X5DPL motherboard
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH-2.6] e1000: fix media_type <-> phy_type thinko
- Previous by thread: Re: ia64_do_page_fault shows 19.4% slowdown from notify_die.
- Next by thread: Re: Is notify_die being overloaded?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|