On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 10:34 -0700, Mike Grundy wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 06:38:40PM +0200, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> > You misunderstood me here. I'm not talking about storing the same piece
> > of data to memory on each processor. I'm talking about isolating all
> > other cpus so that the initiating cpu can store the breakpoint to memory
> > without running into the danger that another cpu is trying to execute it
> > at the same time. But probably the store should be atomic in regard to
> > instruction fetching on the other cpus. It is only two bytes and it
> > should be aligned.
>
> So maybe something like this:
>
> void smp_replace_instruction(void *info) {
> struct ins_replace_args *parms;
> parms = (struct ins_replace_args *) info;
> *parms->addr = *parms->insn
> }
>
> void __kprobes arch_arm_kprobe(struct kprobe *p)
> {
> struct ins_replace_args parms;
> parms.addr = p->addr;
> parms.insn = BREAKPOINT_INSTRUCTION
>
> preempt_disable();
> smp_call_function(smp_replace_instruction, &parms, 0, 1);
> preempt_enable();
> }
Preemption disabling is not necessary around smp_call_function(), since
smp_call_function() takes a spin lock. But smp_call_function() is wrong
here, it calls the code on all other CPUs but not on our own. Please use
on_each_cpu() instead.
Jan
---
Jan Glauber
IBM Linux Technology Center
Linux on zSeries Development, Boeblingen
-
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]
