* Nicholas Miell <[email protected]> wrote:
> You're going to want to be able to trace every function in the kernel,
> which means they'd all need a __trace -- and in that case, a
> -fpad-functions-for-tracing gcc option would make more sense then
> per-function attributes.
the __trace attribute would be a _specific_ replacement for a _specific_
static markup at the entry of a function. So no, we would not want to
add __trace to _every_ function in the kernel: only those which get
commonly traced. And note that SystemTap can trace the rest too, just
with slighly higher overhead.
In that sense __trace is not an enabling infrastructure, it's a
performance tuning infrastructure.
> The option could also insert NOPs before RETs, not just before the
> prologue so that function returns are equally easy to trace. (It might
> also inhibit tail calls, assuming being able to trace all function
> returns is more important than that optimization.)
yeah. __trace_entry and __trace_exit [or both] attributes. Makes sense.
> And SystemTap can already hook into sock_sendmsg() (or any other
> function) and examine it's arguments -- all of this GCC extension talk
> is just performance enhancement.
yes, yes, yes, exactly!!! Finally someone reads my mails and understands
my points. There's hope! ;)
Ingo
-
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]
