[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101115140632.GI7269@basil.fritz.box>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 15:06:33 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, mingo@...e.hu, rostedt@...dmis.org,
andi@...stfloor.org, lwoodman@...hat.com, hch@...radead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 2/2] tracing,mm - add kernel pagefault tracepoint for
x86 & x86_64
> Actually I don't see any reason right now to trace only kernel faults. Do you?
> If that's needed, one can still check on post-processing that the address
> was in the kernel.
I think the idea is to get more context on oopses. If the event only covers
that the overhead in the common case (minus *_user) is much less,
versus the more generalized points you use.
For tracing the whole page fault me think it's better to have
a generalized exception tracer with a filter on page fault.
-Andi
--
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