[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080923012219.GB24937@Krystal>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 21:22:19 -0400
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@...stal.dyndns.org>
To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
Cc: Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] tracehook: Hook in syscall tracing markers.
* Frank Ch. Eigler (fche@...hat.com) wrote:
> Hi -
>
> > At kernel summit, the idea that syscall tracing was generally desirable
> > for tracing was mentioned several times, as was the argument that kernel
> > developers aren't placing markers in meaningful locations. This is a
> > simple patch to try and do that for the syscall case.[...]
>
> One problem with this is that a separate mechanism would be needed to
> activate these tracehook_report_* calls in the first place: the
> management of the per-task TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE flag. This is one of the
> things the utrace API makes straightforward, in which case its own
> native syscall reporting callbacks can be used directly.
>
> - FChE
>
There is already a series of patches in the -lttng tree which adds
TIF_KERNEL_TRACE to every architecture. It basically enables syscall
tracing for every threads running on the system.
It't the best way I found to do system-wide syscall tracing without
changing anything of the assembly code except adding one flag to the
tested flags.
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP 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