This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the systemtap project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers

Ar Maw, 2006-09-19 am 20:52 -0400, ysgrifennodd Karim Yaghmour:
> a) the errata & a possible thread having an IP leading back within (not
>    at the start of) the range to be replaced.
> b) the errata & replacing single instruction with single instruction of
>    same size.

Intel don't distinguish. Richard's reply later in the thread answers a
lot more including what Intels architecture team said about int3 being a
specific safe case for soem reason

> I was vaguely aware of the issue on x86. Do you know if this applies the
> same on other achitectures?

I wouldn't know. 

> Also, this is SMP-only, right? (Not that single UP matters for desktop
> anymore, but just checking.)

There are some uniprocessor errata but I cannot see how you could patch
code, somehow take an interrupt (or return from one) without executing a
serializing instruction, so I likewise think its SMP only.

> Any pointers to the errata? 'specification update' documents (which are always
good reading).

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]