Re: [patch 01/11] Introducing generic hardware breakpoint handlerinterfaces

[Ingo Molnar]

* prasad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <prasad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


> +static u8			tprio[HB_NUM];	/* Thread bp max priorities */
> +LIST_HEAD(kernel_bps);			/* Kernel breakpoint list */
> +static LIST_HEAD(thread_list);			/* thread_hw_breakpoint list */
> +DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct cpu_hw_breakpoint, cpu_bp);

hm, why do we need the whole 'priority' mechanism? It seems very 
over-designed to me.

The likelyhood of both user-space and kernel-space to use 
hw-breakpoints is very low to begin with. And if they use them, 
the likelyhood of there being more than 4 debugregs required in 
the same context is even lower.

If that happens we shouldnt try to be too smart about them - 
just override user-space ones with kernel space ones and that's 
it. No explicit priorities are needed.

	Ingo
--
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/