Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
"Martin J. Bligh" <[email protected]> writes:
> without all the awk-style language crap that seems to come with
> systemtap.
I'm sorry to hear you dislike the scripting language. But that's
okay, you Real Men can embed literal C code inside systemtap scripts
to do the Real Work, and leave to systemtap only sundry duties such as
probe placement and removal.
There are also a couple of projects within SystemTap that provide trace
like functionality without the need to use the SystemTap language. In
the case of LKET, we've tried to make this as simple as possible by
predefining probe points using the SystemTap language and embedded C
code, but from a users perspective all he really need to do is just
invoke a simple script like:
#! stap
process_snapshot() {}
addevent.tskdispatch.cpuidle {}
addevent.process {}
addevent.syscall.entry { printf ("%4b", $flags) }
addevent.syscall.exit {}
addevent.tskdispatch.cpuidle {}
The data can later be analyses in user-space with what ever method you like. The developer instrumenting the probe point needs to know the Systemtap language, but the user of the trace just need to know which events are available to him.
We also plan to do static tracing once SystemTap supports static markers. This may not be the perfect solution, but I'm interested in knowing how we can get there.
-JRS
-
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
