Re: [RFC] [PATCH] To improve kretprobe scalability

[Abhishek Sagar]

On 5/22/08, Srinivasa DS <srinivasa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>  There were ideas of storing kretprobe instances in task_struct to get rid
> of locking, but that would require extending task_struct

Wouldn't chaining of return instances in task_struct only increase its
size by sizeof(struct list_head) bytes?

> and catching each task exit, destroying its kretprobe instances.

Which is kind of stil done by (...or at least we have a precendent of
this issue's awareness) kprobe_flush_task().

> This makes code more invasive.

Ok.

>  But in this implementation (global hash table, hashed by task), we
>  lock only the current task's hash bucket and hence we have fairly low
> contention.

I may be underestimating the complexity of having returns instances
associated with current task_struct, but anything else seems counter
intuitive. There might be more possibilites to exploit the fact that
functions instances are per-task.

A step in the right direction nevertheless :-)

>  Thanks
>   Srinivasa DS
--
Regards,
Abhishek Sagar
--
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/