|
From: Steven R. <ro...@go...> - 2009-11-25 21:29:12
|
On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 15:59 -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > > I see...so the non-preemptible kernel requirement looks > > hard to workaround :-s > > It's the next challenge I think :-) > Even though, kprobes itself still work on preemptive kernel, > so we don't lose any functionality. >From kstop_machine, we could search all tasks to see if any are about to resume in the modified location. If there is, we could either 1) insert a normal kprobe 2) modify the return address of the task to jump to some trampoline to finish the work and return to the code spot with a direct jump. #2 is kind of nasty but seems like a fun thing to implement ;-) -- Steve |