[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090911191502.GB4993@nowhere>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 21:15:04 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>,
Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ibm.com>,
"K.Prasad" <prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@...il.com>,
systemtap <systemtap@...rces.redhat.com>,
DLE <dle-develop@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tracing/kprobes 0/7] tracing/kprobes: kprobe-based
event tracer update and perf support
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 03:03:35PM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> writes:
>
> > [...] I'm really looking forward seeing this C expression-like
> > kprobe creation tool. It seems powerful enough to replace printk +
> > kernel rebuild. No need anymore to write some printk to debug,
> > worrying, [...]
>
> To a large extent, systemtap had delivered this already some years
> ago, including the cushy ponies dancing in the sunlight. While such
> low-level machinery is fine, some of our experience indicates that it
> is dramatically easier to use if high-level, symbolic, debugging data
> is used to compute probe locations and variable names/types/locations.
>
> It is also too easy to stress the low-level machinery beyond its
> humble origins, in this case meaning putting probes in all kinds of
> tender spots that go "ouch". The kprobes robustness patches coming in
> are great and will benefit all of our efforts, but it will be awhile
> until the kernel can survive a fuzz/crashme type stress test on that
> subsystem. So expect ongoing effort there.
Fully agreed! The more I see corner recursivity cases, the more I think
we'll never fix every potential cases. But yeah it's worth trying to
fix all of them that are reported/anticipated, the more such case
are covered, the more it's usable.
--
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