[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:0.021 / U:5.216 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site