[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1616014588.6697.1453991896740.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 14:38:16 +0000 (UTC)
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][BUG] tracer: Fails to work
----- On Jan 28, 2016, at 8:57 AM, Peter Zijlstra peterz@...radead.org wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 01:38:00PM +0000, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>
>> Thoughts ?
>
> So ideally dumping the trace data would not depend on any of that,
> because I can break it all :-)
>
> Not being able to access the trace data completely and utterly defeats
> the purpose of having a tracer in the first place.
One item I have on my todo list is to allow mapping
the tracer buffers (lttng in my case) onto RAM that
persists across reboots/kexec using dax and the pmem
driver. Since the original system is clearly inactive
after a reboot, we can read the buffers from memory
without caring about synchronization.
That would be one possible way of handling your
snapshot-of-buggy-kernel-trace-buffers use-case.
Thanks,
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists