From: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@ericsson.com>
To: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>, Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@polymtl.ca>
Cc: <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't send queries to the MI interpreter
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 19:26:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <03fc7380-fa10-f013-927d-d8b2cbda6f1c@ericsson.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9751aea3-0481-4c4b-52e5-3dcccbf89bad@redhat.com>
On 17-02-10 02:19 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 02/10/2017 07:05 PM, Simon Marchi wrote:
>> On 17-02-10 01:07 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>
>>> So I think that to support multiple queries like that
>>> the simplest / most natural would be to make each
>>> UI above run on its own thread, so that each would have
>>> its own independent stack/frames.
>>
>> Indeed. That represents a tremendous amount of work I imagine,
>> putting the proper locking mechanisms in place... And if you
>> are holding a lock while the query is issued, it would still
>> block some other things.
>
> I had it working with a GIL/BKL-style lock, in the original
> "new-console" prototype that was later rewritten into what
> is "new-ui" today. I.e,. even though we'd have multiple
> threads, only one thread really runs at a time. The idea
> was that we'd start with a big lock, and then over time break
> down the lock into more finer-grained locks.
>
> Here:
>
> https://github.com/palves/gdb/commits/palves/console-extra
>
> - A thread per UI. See the "Start a thread for each UI" patch.
> - Per-UI readline (with a giant readline hack)
> - Per-UI nurses/TUI instance (it really works!) :-)
And which thread handles inferior events?
> The trouble is that this then trips on another nasty problem:
>
> All ptrace calls targeting a process must be issued
> from the thread that first attached to that inferior process.
> The kernel rejects the ptrace call otherwise eith EIO/EINVAL
> or some such, I don't recall which. So on that branch, with
> native debugging, if you start the inferior on UI #1, and then
> try to read memory from UI #2, it fails... If you instead
> try the same against gdbserver, it all works, because in that
> case gdbserver handles the ptrace calls, not gdb, so all
> ptrace calls come from the same thread in that case.
> So for native debugging, we'd need to marshall all ptrace
> requests through the same thread...
A PtraceService... it starts to look just like CDT! :)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-10 19:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-02-10 16:37 Simon Marchi
2017-02-10 16:48 ` Pedro Alves
2017-02-10 16:52 ` Simon Marchi
2017-02-10 17:12 ` Pedro Alves
2017-02-10 17:44 ` Pedro Alves
2017-02-10 18:07 ` Pedro Alves
2017-02-10 18:36 ` Pedro Alves
2017-02-10 19:08 ` Simon Marchi
2017-02-10 19:23 ` Pedro Alves
2017-02-10 19:06 ` Simon Marchi
2017-02-10 19:20 ` Pedro Alves
2017-02-10 19:26 ` Simon Marchi [this message]
2017-02-10 19:32 ` Pedro Alves
2017-02-10 19:30 ` Pedro Alves
2017-02-10 19:03 ` Simon Marchi
2017-02-10 19:08 ` Pedro Alves
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=03fc7380-fa10-f013-927d-d8b2cbda6f1c@ericsson.com \
--to=simon.marchi@ericsson.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=palves@redhat.com \
--cc=simon.marchi@polymtl.ca \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox