[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060921214914.GA31303@Krystal>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 17:49:14 -0400
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@...stal.dyndns.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Martin Bligh <mbligh@...gle.com>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
prasanna@...ibm.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jes Sorensen <jes@....com>, 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>, ltt-dev@...fik.org,
systemtap@...rces.redhat.com, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.5 for Linux 2.6.17 (with probe management)
* Mathieu Desnoyers (compudj@...stal.dyndns.org) wrote:
> * Ingo Molnar (mingo@...e.hu) wrote:
>
> > "As an example, LTTng traces the page fault handler, when kprobes just
> > can't instrument it."
> >
> > but tracing a raw pagefault at the arch level is a bad idea anyway, we
> > want to trace __handle_mm_fault(). That way you can avoid having to
> > modify every architecture's pagefault handler ...
> >
>
> Then you lose the ability to trace in-kernel minor page faults.
>
But I agree with you that an upstream MARKER makes more sense in
__handle_mm_fault(). :-)
Regards,
Mathieu
OpenPGP public key: http://krystal.dyndns.org:8080/key/compudj.gpg
Key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
-
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