On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 14:05:55 +0200 Thomas Preisner <li...@tpreisner.de> wrote:
> I've created this tracer with kernel tailoring in mind since the > tailoring process of e.g. undertaker heavily benefits from a more > precise set of input data. > > A "oneshot" option for the function tracer would be a viable > possibility. However, this may add a lot of overhead (performance wise) > in comparison to my current approach? After all, the use case of my > tracer would be some sort of kernel activity monitoring during "normal > usage" in order to get a grasp of (hopefully) all required kernel > functions. Coming back from vacation and not having this threaded in my inbox, I have to ask (to help cache this back into my head), what was the "current approach" compared to the "oneshot" option, and why would it have better performance? > > Also, there is no strong reason to add a new event type, > this was just a means of reducing the collected data (which may as well > be omitted since there is no real benefit). +1 > > My "oneshot tracer" actually collects and outputs every parent in order > to get a more thorough view on used kernel code. Therefore, I would > suggest to keep this functionality and maybe make it configurable > instead? Configure which? (again, coming back from vacation, I need a refresher on this ;-) -- Steve
