Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 7 Sep 2010 12:47:40 -0400 | From | Mathieu Desnoyers <> | Subject | Re: [PATCHv11 2.6.36-rc2-tip 5/15] 5: uprobes: Uprobes (un)registration and exception handling. |
| |
* Srikar Dronamraju (srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 11:16:42PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote: [...] > > > > Which btw, brings up two more issues, one in uprobes and one in perf. > > For one even in userspace I think the dynamic probes will really just > > be the tip of the iceberg and we'll get more bang for the buck from > > static traces, which is something that's no supported in uprobes yet. > > As a start supporting the dtrace-style sdt.h header would be a great > > help, and then we can decide if we need somthing even better on top. > > Yes, Static tracing using dtrace style sdt.h is a cool thing to do. > Already SystemTap has this facility. However I think its probably > better done at perf user interface level.
We currently have this feature in UST. We're adding "markers" into the applications, and a UST daemon talks with an in-process library helper thread to enable/disable markers and control tracing over unix sockets.
We're currently in the process of moving from markers to the TRACE_EVENT()+tracepoints infrastructure.
Thanks,
Mathieu
> > The way I look at it is perf probe decodes the static markers and asks > uprobes to place probepoints over there. > Do you see a different approach? If yes can you tell what you were > looking at?
-- Mathieu Desnoyers Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com
| |