[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 Ingo Molnar <>:
> * Frédéric Weisbecker <> wrote:
>> 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?

I know you are talking about the only necessary bits from utrace to
have the syscalls tracing.
But I can't answer you better than would the utrace people.

And actually I'm not sure the utrace bits for syscall tracing can be
isolated from the rest of its

Anyway, I will let the utrace guy answer to it :-)

>> There is a very straightforward example provided by Ananth in there:
> 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
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 16:39    [W:0.044 / U:4.816 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site