lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Sep]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/1] system call notification with self_ptrace
Hello Pierre,

On 09/12, Pierre Morel wrote:
>
> You are right, the functionality can be implemented with the system call.
> But it means we have the overhead of a system call just to clear two bits,
> the TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE and the PTS_SELF.

Yes.

So you want to optimize the code for the (imho very exotic) functionality.
And again, the overhead of a system call is nothing compared to the signal
delivery. I bet this overhead won't be visible with any benchmark.

> On the other hand we have an overhead of one single "if" inside
> the handle_signal() function.

What if everyone who wants to add the new functionality will add one
single "if + code" to the core kernel just because he wants to add
a very minor optimization for his needs?

And you forgot about the maintaince overhead. You forgot that this extra
"if" uglifies/complicates the code.

This all is imho of course, and I'm not maintainer. But I promise I
will argue against this change forever ;)

> We can do the same with fork and ptrace, yes, but with a very big
> overhead on each system call and this is why this patch is so usefull:
> because with this patch you sit inside the thread when analysing it and
> have a direct access to all data without the need of IPC, ptrace or any
> task switch.
>
> I will provide a test program and plan to release a tracing tool based
> on it.

Yes please, this would be very nice. Please do not count me, but I'm
afraid I am not alone who needs to really understand why this patch
is useful.

Oleg.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-09-12 16:29    [W:0.066 / U:0.020 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site