Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758622Ab1COUoX (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:44:23 -0400 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.123]:62472 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758414Ab1COUoU (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:44:20 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=aqMe+0lCtaYvy4h0jyaoPGyq+DPF+P6rPG2xbekoY9Q= c=1 sm=0 a=DpMNfemkRQYA:10 a=Q9fys5e9bTEA:10 a=OPBmh+XkhLl+Enan7BmTLg==:17 a=p5VEmyIGDiDygRvd1UYA:9 a=4efMWQ40mkxfBx7r7XpLUlH63QgA:4 a=PUjeQqilurYA:10 a=OPBmh+XkhLl+Enan7BmTLg==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 67.242.120.143 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2.6.38-rc8-tip 0/20] 0: Inode based uprobes From: Steven Rostedt To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Andi Kleen , Andrew Morton , Srikar Dronamraju , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Linux-mm , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Linus Torvalds , Masami Hiramatsu , Christoph Hellwig , Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli , Oleg Nesterov , Jim Keniston , Roland McGrath , SystemTap , LKML , "Paul E. McKenney" In-Reply-To: References: <20110314133403.27435.7901.sendpatchset@localhost6.localdomain6> <20110314163028.a05cec49.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20110314234754.GP2499@one.firstfloor.org> <20110315180639.GQ2499@one.firstfloor.org> <1300219261.9910.300.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:44:16 -0400 Message-ID: <1300221856.9910.305.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1499 Lines: 39 On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 21:09 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 15 Mar 2011, Steven Rostedt wrote: > I didn't say that ptrace rocks. > > All I'm saying is that we want a better argument than a single user > which is - and yes i tried it more than once - assbackwards beyond all > imagination. > > If gdb, perf, trace can and will make use of it then we have sensible I'm more interested in the perf/trace than gdb, as the way gdb is mostly used (at least now) to debug problems in the code with a big hammer (single step, look at registers/variables). That is, gdb is usually very interactive and its best to "stop the code" from running to examine what has happened. gdb is not something you will run on an application that is being used by others. With perf/trace things are different, as you want the task to be as little affected by the tracer as it runs, perhaps even in a production environment. This is a completely different paradigm. If gdb uses it, great, but I don't think we should bend over backwards to make it usable by gdb. Debugging and tracing are different, with different requirements and needs. > arguments enough to go there. If systemtap can use it as well then I > have no problem with that.. Fair enough. -- Steve -- 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/