Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 12 Jul 2005 13:44:01 -0700 | From | Vara Prasad <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |