Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754324AbZI3MEx (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:04:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753693AbZI3MEw (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:04:52 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:54121 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754309AbZI3MEu (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:04:50 -0400 Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:04:18 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Masami Hiramatsu Cc: Frederic Weisbecker , Steven Rostedt , lkml , Thomas Gleixner , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Mike Galbraith , Paul Mackerras , Peter Zijlstra , Christoph Hellwig , Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli , Jim Keniston , "Frank Ch. Eigler" , systemtap , DLE Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH tracing/kprobes 0/5] tracing/kprobes, perf: perf kprobe support Message-ID: <20090930120418.GB7618@elte.hu> References: <20090925191424.12939.91503.stgit@omoto> <4AC2AF01.9090202@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4AC2AF01.9090202@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) 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: 1315 Lines: 37 * Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > Masami Hiramatsu wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> These patches introduce perf kprobe command and update kprobe-tracer. >> perf kprobe command allows you to add new probe points by C line number >> and local variable names. > > Last week, Arnaldo and I talked about this command, and he suggested > that the command would be better 'perf probe', because it would be > able to cover both of kernel space (by kprobes) and user space (by > uprobes). Agreed. > Basically, I agree with his idea. But I think we may need to consider > more flexible syntax for that purpose before we support uprobes. In > this area, SystemTap has done big advance, we can see how many > varieties of syntax it has by 'man stapprobes'. > > And also, it's hard to decide it without real uprobe-tracer (and > uprobes too!) implementation on ftrace. So, I think it is better to > continue using 'perf kprobe' in this time. > > But it's worth to add to todo list. :) I'd still name it 'perf probe', even if initially it supports kprobes. 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/