[Excuse the quoting, I was out of the loop on this ...]
On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 08:47:54PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > I haven't had much time to look at the oprofile thing, but what I _have_
> > seen has made me rather unhappy (especially the horrid system call
> > tracking kludges).
It makes me very unhappy too. There are a number of horrible things
there, mostly for the sake of convenience and performance.
sys_call_table is just the most obviously foul thing. I'm glad to hear
there is interest in getting some kernel support for such things to be
done tastefully.
> > I'd rather have some generic hooks (a notion of a "profile buffer" and
> > events that cause us to have to synchronize with it, like process
> > switches, mmap/munmap - oprofile wants these too), and some generic helper
> > routines for profiling (turn any eip into a "dentry + offset" pair
> > together with ways to tag specific dentries as being "worthy" of
> > profiling).
How do you see such dentry names being exported to user-space for the
profiling daemon to access ? The current oprofile scheme is, um, less
than ideal ...
> So. John. Get coding :-)
I'm interested in doing so but I'd like to hear some more on how people
perceive this working. It essentially means a fork for a lot of the
kernel-side code, so it'd mean a lot more work for us (at least until I
can drop the 2.2/2.4 versions).
regards
john
-- "If a thing is not diminished by being shared, it is not rightly owned if it is only owned & not shared." - St. Augustine - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 15 2002 - 22:00:12 EST