Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Tom Zanussi wrote:
[..]
> This is much more simpler and much better for control (also from
point of
> view caching bugs in agregator code -> also from point of view kernel
> stability).
>
> Also .. probably some code for handle i.e. counters cen be the same as
> existing code in current kernel.
> Probably some "atomic" (and/or simpler) agregators can be usefull
in other
> places in kernel for collecting some data during all time when system
> works .. so code for handle this can be reused in non-ocasinal
> tracing/measuring.
> And again: all without things like relayfs.
Well, you should check out the sytemtap project. It's basically a
DTrace clone which is already doing these kinds of things with
kprobes, and it's using relayfs...
Probaly by this it will be harder to say "KProbes it is Solaris DTrace
clone".
I have not looked at Dtrace code but based on their USENIX paper looks
like we can not call Systemtap as Dtrace clone without a buffering
scheme like relayfs.
kloczek
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |