Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757523AbZFWVwg (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:52:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753664AbZFWVw3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:52:29 -0400 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:60206 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752744AbZFWVw2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:52:28 -0400 Message-ID: <4A414F0D.3020805@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:54:21 -0400 From: Masami Hiramatsu User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090320) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli , lkml , "H. Peter Anvin" , Frederic Weisbecker , Jim Keniston , Srikar Dronamraju , Christoph Hellwig , Steven Rostedt , Anders Kaseorg , Tim Abbott , systemtap , DLE Subject: Re: [RFC][ PATCH -tip v2 0/7] kprobes: Kprobes jump optimization support References: <20090622212255.5384.53732.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <20090623114252.GB9497@elte.hu> <4A40E153.9030704@redhat.com> <20090623194009.GA8777@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20090623194009.GA8777@elte.hu> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1223 Lines: 38 Ingo Molnar wrote: >> Ingo Molnar wrote: >>> * Masami Hiramatsu wrote: >>> >>>> o Usage >>>> Set CONFIG_OPTPROBES=y when building a kernel, then all *probes will be >>>> optimized if possible. >>> Should be default-y if KPROBES is enabled. I.e. we really only want >>> to disable it to debug potential issues. >> Sure, thanks! > > Plus i'd suggest a runtime control (a sysctl) as well - if it's not > too intrusive. Since this is an optional speedup feature, distros > can have this enabled and if there's some problem with it then it > can still be disabled in sysctl.conf, without having to rebuild the > kernel. The runtime control is a good idea. Btw, current kprobes already has a runtime disable interface under sysfs. Is there any reason that we'd better to use sysctl instead of sysfs? Thank you, -- Masami Hiramatsu Software Engineer Hitachi Computer Products (America), Inc. Software Solutions Division e-mail: mhiramat@redhat.com -- 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/