[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130323180443.GB4076@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 19:04:43 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Anton Arapov <anton@...hat.com>
Cc: Josh Stone <jistone@...hat.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Frank Eigler <fche@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
adrian.m.negreanu@...el.com, Torsten.Polle@....de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] uretprobes: return probes implementation
On 03/23, Anton Arapov wrote:
>
> IIUC, Oleg have stressed that perf and trace events requires
> additional code to leverage the return probes. IOW this patchset
> implements core only and to use it we need to teach the perf about
> rp_handler().
Yes,
> And I don't see why we would need additional parameter for
> rp_handler() as well.
trace_uprobe should use the same fmt = "(%lx <- %lx)" to teport
"entry <- exit" info, like trace_kprobe does.
And note that, unlike kprobe, the same function can be mmapped at
different address by different (or even the same) tasks.
But mostly I just wanted to say that yes, we will also teach
trace_uprobe to use the new feature before we ask to merge this
code.
Oleg.
--
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