linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <450B1ED1.3060508@am.sony.com>
Date:	Fri, 15 Sep 2006 14:44:49 -0700
From:	Tim Bird <tim.bird@...sony.com>
To:	tglx@...utronix.de
CC:	Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>, karim@...rsys.com,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Tom Zanussi <zanussi@...ibm.com>, ltt-dev@...fik.org,
	Michel Dagenais <michel.dagenais@...ymtl.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108

Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-09-15 at 21:10 +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> 
>>>this is being worked on actively: there's the "djprobes" patchset, which 
>>>includes a simplified disassembler to analyze common target code and can 
>>>thus insert much faster, call-a-trampoline-function based tracepoints 
>>>that are just as fast as (or faster than) compile-time, static 
>>>tracepoints.
>>
>>Who is going to implement this for every arch?
>>Is this now the official party line that only archs, which implement all 
>>of this, can make use of efficient tracing?
>  
> In the reverse you are enforcing an ugly - but available for all archs -
> solution due to the fact that there is nobody interested enough to
> implement it ?

????

If there's a solution people are willing to implement, and one
they aren't - doesn't that say something?  Static tracepoint
patches for numerous architectures have existed and been maintained
out-of-tree for years.

> If there is no interest to do that, then this arch can probably live w/o
> instrumentation for the next decade too.

The arches already have instrumentation - just not dynamic 
instrumentation.  The reason static tracepoints have been
implemented and kprobes haven't is that static tracepoints
are sufficient for what those people are doing, and dynamic
tracepoints are a pain to implement.

Let me repeat that, just in case people missed it:
"Static tracepoints work for what I need."  If other people
want to implement something fancier that works for them,
then feel free.

=============================
Tim Bird
Architecture Group Chair, CE Linux Forum
Senior Staff Engineer, Sony Electronics
=============================

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/