Re: Merging relayfs?

[Vara Prasad]

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



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/