This is the mail archive of the
systemtap@sourceware.org
mailing list for the systemtap project.
Re: Discussion at Linux Foundation Japan Symposium
- From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat at redhat dot com>
- To: Satoshi OSHIMA <satoshi dot oshima dot fk at hitachi dot com>
- Cc: systemtap at sourceware dot org, 橋本K <hisashi dot hashimoto dot wh at hitachi dot com>, Yumiko SUGITA <yumiko dot sugita dot yf at hitachi dot com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:34:59 -0500
- Subject: Re: Discussion at Linux Foundation Japan Symposium
- References: <494A053D.4030808@hitachi.com>
Hi Satoshi,
Thank you for reporting!
Satoshi OSHIMA wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Long time no see and sorry for my late report.
>
> I attended 9th Linux Foundation Japan Symposium and
> discussed on issues of systemtap project with Ted Ts'o,
> James Bottomley and Jonathan Corbet.
FYI, we also discuss this topic on below bugzilla.
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7042
There are links to videos of the symposium on that bugzilla.
> In my understanding, they demand the following things:
>
> (1) Follow upstream first
>
> Utrace and uprobe features are currently available only
> on Fedora and Red Hat Enterprise Linux, since those
> patches are not merged into upstream kernel yet.
>
> my suggestion:
>
> To reduce complaints of upstream kernel developers,
> systemtap project may need to postpone adding new
> uprobe features until getting utrace (and uprobe)
> patch set accepted in mainline.
>
>
> (2) Maintain tapset
>
> Systemtap users (including kernel developers) get
> frustrated because tapsets often do not work on
> the latest kernel. Moreover, sometimes users
> have to fix the tapset incompatibility of kernels.
>
> my suggestion:
>
> If systemtap procjet can fix this kind of incompatibilities
> within a few hours or days as Myths about systemtap
> on the wiki claims, releasing new systemtap minor release
> tarball for each upstream kernel release would help users.
Agreed, We have a weekly snapshot for it. however, that means
it could delay 1 week. And also, we should provide which
release can work on the latest kernel.
> (3) Make no debuginfo version
>
> Systemtap always requires kernel debuginfo to use.
> Unfortunately, it is hard for users of some distributions
> to have debuginfo.
>
> my suggestion:
>
> If systemtap has a build option to make no debuginfo version,
> this complain will be reduced. I know we had had it before.
> We should provide it again.
As Prasad said, systemtap had supported no-dwarf mode, however,
currently it is disabled (due to uprobe issue?). I strongly
recommend to re-enable it only for kernel-space probes as soon as possible.
> (4) Have conversations frequently with Kernel Community
>
> I understand that Frank has tried to communicate with upstream
> kernel community. However, it seems that developers of upstream
> kernel feel it is not enough.
>
> my suggestion:
>
> I know that systemtap is a bit different from other part of
> the kernel. Usual kernel subsystem maintainers are chosen
> on activities in lkml. On the other hand, systemtap maintainer's
> activities are invisible for almost all of the kernel developers.
>
> This may be one of the reasons of their frastration.
> To solve this problem, we should periodically make announcements
> of systemtap update and require questions or comments.
>From Linux foundation video, I think we also would better work
with some kernel (subsystem) maintainers, and ask them
what they need to use systemtap easy.
--
Masami Hiramatsu
Software Engineer
Hitachi Computer Products (America) Inc.
Software Solutions Division
e-mail: mhiramat@redhat.com