[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers
    Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
    > * Vara Prasad ( wrote:
    >>Martin Bligh wrote:
    >>>Depends what we're trying to fix. I was trying to fix two things:
    >>>1. Flexibility - kprobes seem unable to access all local variables etc
    >>>easily, and go anywhere inside the function. Plus keeping low overhead
    >>>for doing things like keeping counters in a function (see previous
    >>>example I mentioned for counting pages in shrink_list).
    >>Using tools like systemtap on can consult DWARF information and put
    >>probes in the middle of the function and access local variables as well,
    >>that is not the real problem. The issue here is compiler doesn't seem to
    >>generate required DWARF information in some cases due to optimizations.
    >>The other related problem is when there exists debug information, the
    >>way to specify the breakpoint location is using line number which is not
    >>maintainable, having a marker solves this problem as well. Your proposal
    >>still doesn't solve the need for markers if i understood correctly.
    > His implementation makes a heavy use of a marker mechanism : this is exactly
    > what permits to create the instrumented objects from the same source code, but
    > with different #defines.

    I don't think it ties us to markers, though I think they're superior for
    maintaintance, personally. It could equally well be an out of tree
    normal flat patch with all the tracing in, which would make Andrew
    happy, even if I think it sucks ;-)

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-09-19 21:27    [W:0.021 / U:5.184 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site