[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1158608981.6069.167.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 20:49:40 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Vara Prasad <prasadav@...ibm.com>
Cc: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jes Sorensen <jes@....com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Tom Zanussi <zanussi@...ibm.com>,
Richard J Moore <richardj_moore@...ibm.com>,
Michel Dagenais <michel.dagenais@...ymtl.ca>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
William Cohen <wcohen@...hat.com>,
"Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@...igh.org>,
systemtap <systemtap@...rceware.org>
Subject: Re: tracepoint maintainance models
Ar Llu, 2006-09-18 am 12:10 -0700, ysgrifennodd Vara Prasad:
> I am not sure i quiet understand your line number part of the proposal.
> Does this proposal assume we have access to source code while generating
> dynamic probes?
Its one route - or we dump it into an ELF section in the binary.
> This still doesn't solve the problem of compiler optimizing such that a
> variable i would like to read in my probe not being available at the
> probe point.
Then what we really need by the sound of it is enough gcc smarts to do
something of the form
.section "debugbits"
.asciiz 'hook_sched'
.dword l1 # Address to probe
.word 1 # Argument count
.dword gcc_magic_whatregister("next"); [ reg num or memory ]
.dword gcc_magic_whataddress("next"); [ address if exists]
Can gcc do any of that for us today ?
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists