This is the mail archive of the
systemtap@sourceware.org
mailing list for the systemtap project.
Re: [RFC] Tracepoint proposal
- From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat at redhat dot com>
- To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki dot motohiro at jp dot fujitsu dot com>
- Cc: Takashi Nishiie <t-nishiie at np dot css dot fujitsu dot com>, "'Alexey Dobriyan'" <adobriyan at gmail dot com>, "'Mathieu Desnoyers'" <mathieu dot desnoyers at polymtl dot ca>, "'Peter Zijlstra'" <peterz at infradead dot org>, "'Steven Rostedt'" <rostedt at goodmis dot org>, "'Frank Ch. Eigler'" <fche at redhat dot com>, "'Ingo Molnar'" <mingo at elte dot hu>, "'LKML'" <linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org>, "'systemtap-ml'" <systemtap at sources dot redhat dot com>, "'Hideo AOKI'" <haoki at redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 13:01:45 -0400
- Subject: Re: [RFC] Tracepoint proposal
- References: <007601c8d5ca$18fa0e10$4aee2a30$@css.fujitsu.com> <48611B03.1000003@redhat.com> <20080625011951.D83E.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com>
KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>> Tracepoint
>> - stored in a section
>> - dynamic activation
>> - no message
>> - export kernel structure
>> - arguments depending on points
>> - high frequently called
>> - no module support (kernel use only)
>
> Why Shouldn't kernel module use tracepoint?
> technical problem? or any plicy exist?
Good question, I think we don't want to export so much
kernel internal structures. Since tracepoint tend to export
raw kernel structure to user module, I thought it might be
better not to export its interface to modules.
However, I thought that again, and knew what Peter worried was
about marker which exports marker list to user space.
So, the issue is exporting internal structures to user space,
not to modules. Thus, I think it can support modules also.
Thank you,
--
Masami Hiramatsu
Software Engineer
Hitachi Computer Products (America) Inc.
Software Solutions Division
e-mail: mhiramat@redhat.com