From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
utrace-devel <utrace-devel@redhat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] In-kernel gdbstub based on utrace Infrastructure.
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:27:38 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091211012738.GA646@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20091210181638.GA17986@elte.hu>
Hi -
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 07:16:38PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> [...]
> > The gdbstub prototype was constructed for two reasons: to demonstrate
> > utrace usage now, and in the future to be incrementally useful (over
> > ptrace, by moving into fast kernel-space operations like
> > multithreading control, gdb-tracepoint support, other stuff). [...]
>
> What i'd like to see is measurable benefits to users, developers and
> maintainers.
OK, it's clear that in the gdb-stub's case, some positive motivation
beyond it being an api-educational example would be appropriate before
merging. Note that it was only an RFC at the time.
> I'd like to see the same for SystemTap too btw.
systemtap's benefits are beyond question to its users. (Others are
worried about systemtap problems, but that wasn't your question.) In
what form do you expect to see such measurements? It would help if
you could point out prior examples of such "measurable benefit"
analyses that perchance accompanied other then-new kernel features,
say in the tracing/debugging area.
- FChE
prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-12-11 1:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-11-30 12:03 [RFC] [PATCH] In-kernel gdbstub based on utrace Infrastructure Srikar Dronamraju
2009-11-30 12:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-11-30 12:32 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2009-11-30 12:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-11-30 13:19 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2009-11-30 13:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-11-30 14:05 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2009-11-30 15:03 ` Frank Ch. Eigler
2009-11-30 15:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-11-30 15:16 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-11-30 15:29 ` Frank Ch. Eigler
2009-12-01 16:11 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-12-01 17:00 ` Frank Ch. Eigler
2009-12-01 17:09 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-12-01 17:45 ` Frank Ch. Eigler
2009-12-01 21:15 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-12-08 21:58 ` Frank Ch. Eigler
2009-12-10 7:41 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-12-10 15:08 ` Frank Ch. Eigler
2009-12-10 18:16 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-12-11 1:27 ` Frank Ch. Eigler [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20091211012738.GA646@redhat.com \
--to=fche@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=utrace-devel@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox