[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 0/6] ftrace: to kill a daemon (small updates)
(From the original mail)

Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Along came Gregory Haskins, who was bickering about having ftrace enabled
> on a production -rt kernel. I told him the reasons that this would be bad
> and then he started thinking out loud, and suggesting wild ideas, like
> patching gcc!

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Eventually gcc should be extended to provide a separate section for
> instrumentation patch sites, instead of us having to disassemble the
> object code.


I obviously agree with this, so +1

Though, tbh, at the time I suggested it I didn't think of Steve's idea
to post-process which was quite clever. But I do agree that having gcc
do it will probably save some build time since it will probably be
trivial for it to do this when already processing -pg. It would have the
added benefit of letting the arch specific toolchain do the arch
specific work (though I think Steve's solution capitalizes on the
toolchain extensively as it is).

The biggest downside is that we would have an external dependency on gcc
for the feature, but I guess the kernel already has some of those anyway
(e.g. the stack overflow guard feature, etc). We could always fall back
on Steve's post-processing if the toolchain lacks the feature.


[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-08-15 13:27    [W:0.111 / U:15.236 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site