On 08/01, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>
> On 08/01/2012 05:01 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> On 08/01, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>>> So a patch like
>>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/step.c
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/step.c
>>> @@ -173,8 +173,8 @@ static void enable_step(struct task_struct *child,
>>> bool block)
>>> unsigned long debugctl = get_debugctlmsr();
>>>
>>> debugctl |= DEBUGCTLMSR_BTF;
>>> - update_debugctlmsr(debugctl);
>>> set_tsk_thread_flag(child, TIF_BLOCKSTEP);
>>> + update_debugctlmsr(debugctl);
>>> } else if (test_tsk_thread_flag(child, TIF_BLOCKSTEP)) {
>>> unsigned long debugctl = get_debugctlmsr();
>>>
>>> should fix the race
>>
>> No, I don't think it can fix something ;) or make any difference.
>
> Why? You _first_ set the task flag
Yes, and this task is "child".
> followed by the CPU register. Now
> switch_to() would see the bit set and act.
child sleeps and doesn't participate in switch_to(). Debugger and another
(unrelated) task do.
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
