[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] tracer for sys_open() - sreadahead
    2009/1/29 Frédéric Weisbecker <>:
    > 2009/1/29 Ingo Molnar <>:
    >>> Several people talked me about utrace and gave some examples about it in
    >>> this discussion. The Api is very convenient to fetch syscall numbers,
    >>> arguments and return values. And the hooks are done in the generic core
    >>> code, so it is arch independent.
    >>> The only drawback I can see is that it is not yet merged upstream, in
    >>> need of in-kernel users. If it only depends on this condition, we could
    >>> be these users...
    >>> What do you think?
    >> sure - how do the minimal bits/callbacks look like which enable syscall
    >> tracing?
    >> Ingo
    > There is a very straightforward example provided by Ananth in there:

    One other drawback may be the fact that utrace will be traced by the
    function tracers... adding some junk on their traces.
    But I guess this is just a matter of some patches to make it not traced.

    BTW, there is an interesting proof of concept there:
    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: 2009-01-29 15:51    [W:0.020 / U:29.072 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site