lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jul]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Merging relayfs?
Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> [..]
>
>> > This is much more simpler and much better for control (also from
>> point of
>> > view caching bugs in agregator code -> also from point of view kernel
>> > stability).
>> >
>> > Also .. probably some code for handle i.e. counters cen be the same as
>> > existing code in current kernel.
>> > Probably some "atomic" (and/or simpler) agregators can be usefull
>> in other
>> > places in kernel for collecting some data during all time when system
>> > works .. so code for handle this can be reused in non-ocasinal
>> > tracing/measuring.
>> > And again: all without things like relayfs.
>>
>> Well, you should check out the sytemtap project. It's basically a
>> DTrace clone which is already doing these kinds of things with
>> kprobes, and it's using relayfs...
>
>
> Probaly by this it will be harder to say "KProbes it is Solaris DTrace
> clone".
>
I have not looked at Dtrace code but based on their USENIX paper looks
like we can not call Systemtap as Dtrace clone without a buffering
scheme like relayfs.

> kloczek



-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-07-12 22:51    [W:0.271 / U:0.360 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site