Re: [RFC PATCH 2/8] jump label v4 - x86: Introduce generic jumppatching without stop_machine

[Mathieu Desnoyers]

* Masami Hiramatsu (mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > * Arjan van de Ven (arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> >> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 10:59:30 -0500
> >> Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Yeah, so in the latest patch, I updated it to use int3 even if
> >>> len == 1. :-)
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> int3 is not making a difference for your case; there is no guarantee
> >> that the other processor even sees the "int3 inbetween state" at all;
> >> if it's not safe without int3 then it won't be safe with int3 either.
> > 
> > What Masami means is that he updated his patch to use the int3+IPI
> > broadcast scheme.
> 
> Right.
> 
> > 
> > Therefore, the CPUs not seeing the int3 inbetween state will be forced
> > to issue a serializing instruction while the int3 is in place anyway.
> 
> By the way, in kprobes, we just use a text_poke() to put int3.
> I assume that we'd better send IPI afterward, wouldn't it?

Only if you need to ensure that you reached a state where all CPUs are
seeing the int3.

Note that kprobes already issues synchronize_sched() after breakpoint
removal, which should have a similar effect. However, AFAIK, it does not
synchronize after inserting the int3.

Thanks,

Mathieu

> 
> Thank you,
> 
> -- 
> Masami Hiramatsu
> 
> Software Engineer
> Hitachi Computer Products (America), Inc.
> Software Solutions Division
> 
> e-mail: mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx
> 

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
--
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/