Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757210Ab1COLEO (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Mar 2011 07:04:14 -0400 Received: from www.tglx.de ([62.245.132.106]:51443 "EHLO www.tglx.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757175Ab1COLEN (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Mar 2011 07:04:13 -0400 Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:02:45 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Srikar Dronamraju cc: "Frank Ch. Eigler" , Andrew Morton , int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Steven Rostedt , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Linus Torvalds , Masami Hiramatsu , Christoph Hellwig , Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli , Andi Kleen , Oleg Nesterov , Jim Keniston , SystemTap , LKML , "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2.6.38-rc8-tip 0/20] 0: Inode based uprobes In-Reply-To: <20110315052133.GT24254@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Message-ID: References: <20110314133403.27435.7901.sendpatchset@localhost6.localdomain6> <20110314163028.a05cec49.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20110315052133.GT24254@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2036 Lines: 50 On Tue, 15 Mar 2011, Srikar Dronamraju wrote: > > > TODO: Documentation/trace/uprobetrace.txt > > > > without a reasonable documentation how to use that is a brilliant > > argument? > > We had a fairly decent documentation for uprobes and > uprobetracer. But that had to be changed with the change in > underlying design of uprobes infrastructure. Since uprobetrace is one > the user interface, I plan to document it soon. However it would be > great if we had inputs on how we should be designing the syscall. Ok. > > Or some sensible implementation ? > > Would syscall based perf probe implementation count as a sensible > implementation? My current plan was to code up the perf probe for Yes. > uprobes and then draft a proposal for how the syscall should look. > There are still some areas on how we should be allowing the > filter, and what restrictions we should place on the syscall > defined handler. I would like to hear from you and others on your > ideas for the same. If you have ideas on doing it other than using a > syscall then please do let me know about the same. I don't think that anything else than a proper syscall interface is going to work out. > I know that getting the user interface right is very important. > However I think it kind of depends on what the infrastructure can > provide too. So if we can decide on the kernel ABI and the > underlying design (i.e can we use replace_page() based background page > replacement, Are there issues with the Xol slot based mechanism that > we are using, etc), we can work towards providing a stable User ABI that > even normal users can use. For now I am concentrating on getting the > underlying infrastructure correct. Fair enough. I'll go through the existing patchset and comment there. Thanks, tglx -- 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/