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

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:

> 2009/1/29 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>:
> >>
> >> 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:
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/1/28/59

I mean, how does the infrastructure patch look like - what code does this 
add to the kernel - just to get the syscall tracing bits. Lets get some 
progress here - it's clear that tracing syscalls is good, we just need to 
do it and look at actual patches.

	Ingo