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]

Date:	Fri, 15 Sep 2006 16:49:17 -0500
From:	"Jose R. Santos" <jrs@...ibm.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, tglx@...utronix.de, karim@...rsys.com,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>, Jes Sorensen <jes@....com>,
	Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.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

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 20:19:07 +0200
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> > 
> > * Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > What Karim is sharing with us here (yet again) is the real in-field 
> > > experience of real users (ie: not kernel developers).
> > 
> > well, Jes has that experience and Thomas too.
>
> systemtap and ltt are the only full-scale tracing tools which target
> sysadmins and applciation developers of which I am aware..
>   

IMO, I think SystemTap is to generic of a tool to be considered a 
tracing tool.  LKET and LKST are more comparable with the functionality 
that LTT provides.  LKET is implemented using SystemTap while LKST has 
both a SystemTap and static kernel patch implementation.


> In the bit of text which you snipped I was agreeing with this...
>
> Look, if Karim and Frank (who I assume is a systemtap developer) think that
> we need static tracepoints then I have no reason to disagree with them. 
> What I would propose is that:
>
> a) Those tracepoints be integrated one at a time on well-understood
>    grounds of necessity.  Tracepoints _should_ be added dynamically.  But
>    if there are instances where that's not working and cannot be made to
>    work then OK, in we go.
>   
Agree.  What would be the criteria that justifies having static probe vs 
a dynamic one?

-JRS

-
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/