linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: add the debugfs interface for the sysprof tool

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:	Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:42:34 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Soeren Sandmann <sandmann@...mi.au.dk>
Cc:	John Levon <levon@...ementarian.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...x.de, hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: add the debugfs interface for the sysprof tool

On 23 Feb 2008 21:15:52 +0100 Soeren Sandmann <sandmann@...mi.au.dk> wrote:

> It was only later I tried oprofile and found it not only much more
> difficult to use, but also much less useful when I did get it to work.

Could we please be very careful to not conflate oprofile's kernel support
with oprofile userspace?  For the purposes of this discussion the
distinction is most important.

I _assume_ you're referring to oprofile userspace which I agree is
user-hostile.  It is a rich area for others to improve upon.  In so doing
they might even have a need to change oprofile's kernel code.  But simply
giving up and going off and implementing some parallel kernel code is an
utter last resort and should only be done after it has been shown that the
current kernel code is unfixable.
--
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/