Re: Merging relayfs?

[Vara Prasad <prasadav@us.ibm.com>]

Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> [..]
>
>> > This is much more simpler and much better for control (also from 
>> point of
>> > view caching bugs in agregator code -> also from point of view kernel
>> > stability).
>> >
>> > Also .. probably some code for handle i.e. counters cen be the same as
>> > existing code in current kernel.
>> > Probably some "atomic" (and/or simpler) agregators can be usefull 
>> in other
>> > places in kernel for collecting some data during all time when system
>> > works .. so code for handle this can be reused in non-ocasinal
>> > tracing/measuring.
>> > And again: all without things like relayfs.
>>
>> Well, you should check out the sytemtap project.  It's basically a
>> DTrace clone which is already doing these kinds of things with
>> kprobes, and it's using relayfs...
>
>
> Probaly by this it will be harder to say "KProbes it is Solaris DTrace
> clone".
>
I have not looked at Dtrace code but based on their USENIX paper looks 
like we can not call Systemtap as Dtrace clone without a buffering 
scheme like relayfs.

> kloczek