Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755004AbZCWGfi (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Mar 2009 02:35:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754076AbZCWGf3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Mar 2009 02:35:29 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:39434 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753557AbZCWGf2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Mar 2009 02:35:28 -0400 Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 07:34:56 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Roland McGrath Cc: Andrew Morton , Steven Rostedt , utrace-devel@redhat.com, Frank Eigler , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] utrace-based ftrace "process" engine, v2 Message-ID: <20090323063456.GA7752@elte.hu> References: <20090321013946.890F4FC3AB@magilla.sf.frob.com> <20090321014244.9ADF1FC3AB@magilla.sf.frob.com> <20090321074301.GA19384@elte.hu> <20090321013912.ed6039c9.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090321091235.GA29678@elte.hu> <20090323044940.870ECFC3AB@magilla.sf.frob.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090323044940.870ECFC3AB@magilla.sf.frob.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1840 Lines: 39 * Roland McGrath wrote: > > kernel/utrace.c should probably be introduced as > > kernel/trace/utrace.c not kernel/utrace.c. It also overlaps pending > > work in the tracing tree and cooperation would be nice and desired. > > Of course I would like to cooperate with everyone. And of course > it does not really matter much where a source file lives. But > IMHO utrace really does not fit in with the kernel/trace/ code > much at all. Sure, its hooks can be used by tracer > implementations that use CONFIG_TRACING stuff. But it is a > general API about user thread state. It belongs in kernel/trace/ > "naturally" far less than, say, kprobes. utrace will in future be > used to implement userland features (ptrace et al) that are just > aspects of the basics of what an operating system does: mediate > userland for userland. Those uses will have nothing to do with > "kernel tracing". But it is fitting if you think of kernel/trace/ as kernel/instrumentation/. The virtualization-alike uses for utrace are in essence using system call instrumentation callbacks to inject extra functionality into the system. That's possible not because it's primarily geared at doing that, but because the instrumentation callbacks are generic and complete enough. It's still correct to think of it as an instrumentation tool and to maintain it as such. That also makes it clear that none of these APIs are to be regarded permanent ABIs. Anyway ... placement is no big deal, and kernel/utrace.c is certainly a good way of avoiding the tracing tree ;-) Ingo -- 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/