Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:17:54 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] tracer for sys_open() - sreadahead | From | Frédéric Weisbecker <> |
| |
2009/1/29 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>: > > * Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 2009/1/29 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>: >> >> >> >> 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: >> http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/1/28/59 > > I mean, how does the infrastructure patch look like - what code does this > add to the kernel - just to get the syscall tracing bits. Lets get some > progress here - it's clear that tracing syscalls is good, we just need to > do it and look at actual patches. > > Ingo >
The latest snapshot version I've found is here: http://people.redhat.com/roland/utrace/2.6-current/utrace.patch This is mostly independent core code and a good number of hooks inside ptrace.
But I don't know much about the overhead it potentially brings on ptrace. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |