[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20171006134714.c4c5ee5ee5bd7fa09dd4c179@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:47:14 +0900
From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Ian McDonald <ian.mcdonald@...di.co.nz>,
Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH -tip 0/5] kprobes: Abolish jprobe APIs
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 21:11:30 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 09:32:52 +0900
> Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > I think using ftrace gives you lower latency, but you need to depend on
> > CONFIG_FUNCTION_TRACER instead of CONFIG_KPROBES.
>
> Which shouldn't be an issue, since all distros now have that enabled.
Yeah, so both are good option :)
Thanks,
--
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists