From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2305 invoked by alias); 18 Apr 2006 18:09:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 2286 invoked by uid 48); 18 Apr 2006 18:09:40 -0000 Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 18:09:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20060418180940.2285.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "jkenisto at us dot ibm dot com" To: systemtap@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: <20051216010933.2062.anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com> References: <20051216010933.2062.anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com> Reply-To: sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug kprobes/2062] Return probes does not scale well on SMP box X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo Mailing-List: contact systemtap-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: systemtap-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-q2/txt/msg00177.txt.bz2 ------- Additional Comments From jkenisto at us dot ibm dot com 2006-04-18 18:09 ------- Created an attachment (id=974) --> (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=974&action=view) Thoughts on finer-grained locking for return probes I don't see how we can avoid significant lock overhead, because kretprobe data structures are much more dynamic that kprobe data structures: we're constantly moving kretprobe_instances back and forth between the kretprobe's free list and kretprobe_inst_table[]. I've been thinking about this issue, though. Attached are my current thoughts on finer-grained locking. -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2062 ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.