Re: [PATCH] tracer for sys_open() - sreadahead

From: Frédéric Weisbecker
Date: Thu Jan 29 2009 - 09:48:55 EST

2009/1/29 Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx>:
> 2009/1/29 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>:
>>> Several people talked me about utrace and gave some examples about it in
>>> this discussion. The Api is very convenient to fetch syscall numbers,
>>> arguments and return values. And the hooks are done in the generic core
>>> code, so it is arch independent.
>>> The only drawback I can see is that it is not yet merged upstream, in
>>> need of in-kernel users. If it only depends on this condition, we could
>>> be these users...
>>> What do you think?
>> sure - how do the minimal bits/callbacks look like which enable syscall
>> tracing?
>> Ingo
> There is a very straightforward example provided by Ananth in there:

One other drawback may be the fact that utrace will be traced by the
function tracers... adding some junk on their traces.
But I guess this is just a matter of some patches to make it not traced.

BTW, there is an interesting proof of concept there:
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at