On 12/11, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > > (2013/12/11 0:57), Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > On 12/10, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > >> > >> and isn't it better to increment > >> miss-hit counter of the uprobe? > > > > What do you mean? This is not miss-hit and ->utask == NULL is quite normal. > > But it could skip the handler_chain silently. It could confuse users > why their probe doesn't hit as expected.
No, we will restart the same (probed) instruction, handle_swbp() will be called again, get_utask() will be called again. Not to mention that (in practice) if GFP_KERNEL fails the task is already killed. > > For example, on ppc it can be always NULL because ppc likely emulates the > > probed insn. > > Hmm, in that case, should uprobes handlers never be called on ppc with > this change? Why? With this change ppc will have ->utask != NULL even if it doesn't need it at all. 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/
