On 01/19/2010 12:15 AM, Jim Keniston wrote:
I don't like the idea but if the performance benefits are real (are
they?),
Based on what seems to be the closest thing to an apples-to-apples
comparison -- counting the number of calls to a specified function --
uprobes is 6-7 times faster
On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 10:07 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 01/19/2010 12:15 AM, Jim Keniston wrote:
I don't like the idea but if the performance benefits are real (are
they?),
Based on what seems to be the closest thing to an apples-to-apples
comparison -- counting the number of
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 09:47:45AM -0800, Jim Keniston wrote:
Do you have plans for a variant
that's completely in userspace?
I don't know of any such plans, but I'd be interested to read more of
your thoughts here. As I understand it, you've suggested replacing the
probed instruction
Hi -
Having been reviewed a couple of times, and we hope being a good
candidate for merging next time, please start pulling
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/frob/linux-2.6-utrace.git branch
master
This repo contains frequent merges from Linus' tree. If you'd prefer
a cleaner
Hi Frank,
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:16:46 -0500 Frank Ch. Eigler f...@redhat.com wrote:
Having been reviewed a couple of times, and we hope being a good
candidate for merging next time, please start pulling
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/frob/linux-2.6-utrace.git
branch master
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the utrace tree got a conflict in
kernel/Makefile between commit 9878914352df8ccfbad1307d51ca05706d50cae4
(Audit: split audit watch Kconfig) from the fsnotify tree and commit
f357a74067bc548772166a4817d5f2c32005a449 (utrace core) from the utrace
tree.
Just
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 06:49:50AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
Ingo,
Note, i'm not yet convinced that this (and the rest: uprobes and systemtap,
etc.) can go uptream in its present form.
Agreed, uprobes is still not upstream ready -- it was an RFC. We are
working through the comments there to
* Frederic Weisbecker fweis...@gmail.com [2010-01-19 19:06:12]:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 09:47:45AM -0800, Jim Keniston wrote:
What does the code in the jumped-to vma do? Is the instrumentation code
that corresponds to the uprobe handlers encoded in an ad hoc .so?
Once the
Hi Frank,
On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 07:28:34 +0100 Ingo Molnar mi...@elte.hu wrote:
Including experimental code that is RFC and which is not certain to go
upstream is certainly not the purpose of linux-next though.
Ingo is correct in what he says here. See the boilerplate:
* destined for
* Ingo Molnar mi...@elte.hu wrote:
* Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli ana...@in.ibm.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 06:49:50AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
Ingo,
Note, i'm not yet convinced that this (and the rest: uprobes and
systemtap,
etc.) can go uptream in its present
10 matches
Mail list logo
