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

[Alan Stern]

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> * 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);

If nobody minds, I'll answer some of these questions on Prasad's behalf 
because they address parts of the code that were written before he took 
over the project.

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

This was done at Roland McGrath's express request.  We should see what 
he has to say about it.

> 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.

Not all architectures have 4 debug registers.  Most have only one.

> 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.

Roland really did not want it done this way.

Alan Stern

--
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/