This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the systemtap project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: patches to actually use markers?


Thanks for the pointers, I'll take a look at your patches.

Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
* David Smith ( wrote:

Now that the markers facility itself has made it in the kernel, do you have plans on trying to send patches that actually use markers to lkml?

For systemtap's use, we'd like to get some actual markers in the upstream kernel. Off the top of my head, we might start with adding markers to system calls (sys_*) that contain the system call's argument(s).

Hi David,

Yes, we have something similar in LTTng, we instrument many widely used
system calls to get the detailed arguments.

Do you want to start having a look at my instrumentation patchset ?
Those are the lttng-instrumentation-*.patch patches available in the following

The patches that you may find interesting to comment are :

  These patches adds a thread flag for kernel wide syscall trace
  Note that I would gladly accept some help with the
  They need to add the 9th bit of thread flag that has to be checked by
  a 8 bit limited instruction on these architectures.

  Actual markers. It also includes assembly code change to use the
  thread flags for syscall_trace.
  Some architectures do not have complete architecture specific marker
  set complete.

It's a good thing that we start having a discussion about these marker
sites at this point.


David Smith
Red Hat
256.217.0141 (direct)
256.837.0057 (fax)

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]