lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jan]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [GIT PULL] uprobes: pre-filtering
On 01/25, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > On 01/25, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The other alternative is to extend the current abi and pass
> > > > the prefilter option. Should we extend the abi for userspace
> > > > tracing is obviously debatable.
> > >
> > > That's the obvious path to go - why add something to the kernel
> > > if user-space cannot make use of it?
> >
> > This is what I am going to (try to) do, but I am not sure if this makes
> > sense...
> >
> > For the start, can't we teach 'uprobe_events' file to accept, say,
> >
> > 'p file:0x1234 pid=1 other-opts'
> >
> > for the start? This looks simple enough, and I after looked
> > into tools/perf it seems that perf can be changed too.
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> Sounds sensible and functional to me.

Great, thanks.

> > Then we can extend 'pid=' option to accept the list of pids,
> > perhaps.
> >
> > In the long term we probably need uprobes/pid_filter or
> > something like this, it should allow to add/del pid
> > dynamically. I really do not know.
>
> For now removing+adding a new one should be enough to 'change' a
> uprobe, right?

Yes, yes. I meant that obviously we can do more/better to filter-out
the tasks we do not want to probe. But this need more changes, and more
importantly this needs more discussion about API/ABI/etc.

Thanks.

Oleg.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-01-25 21:03    [W:0.084 / U:33.116 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site