On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 11:01:16PM -0700, Keshavamurthy Anil S wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 02:28:24PM -0500, Robin Holt wrote:
> > This set definitely improves things. My timings from last week must
> > have been off. I think I may have still had the notify_die() call in
> > the fault path. This week, I see a 35 nSec slowdown between with/without
> > KRPOBES. Last week, I thought they were roughly equivalent.
> The non-overloaded call chain notification with dynamic registeration/unregistration
> is much better than earlier one. But if you still want to improve the 35 nSec
> slowdown, then the only other alternative is to eliminate the call chain and
> try calling kprobe_exceptions_notify() directly with the kprobe_running() around it.
> i.e
> static inline int notify_page_fault(enum die_val val, const char *str,
> struct pt_regs *regs, long err, int trap, int sig)
If we do that, can we rename notify_page_fault to something with kprobes in it?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
