Re: [PATCH 4/6] trace: trace syscall in its handler not from ptracehandler
From: H. Peter Anvin
Date: Thu Mar 29 2012 - 18:44:28 EST
On 03/29/2012 03:40 PM, David Sharp wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 1:06 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I had a long discussion with Frederic over IRC earlier today. We came
>> up with the following strawman:
>> 1. A system call thunk (which could be enabled/disabled by patching the
>> syscall table.) This provides an entry and exit hook, and also sets a
>> per-thread flag to capture userspace traffic.
> Our goal is for syscall traces to be as fast as regular tracepoints.
> iirc, What we've found is that much of the extra overhead of syscall
> tracepoints as compared to regular tracepoints is due to that the code
> path for syscall tracing is bundled with checks for ptrace and other
> stuff (Vaibhav did all this characterization, he can jump in with
> details if wanted). How much work would this "thunk" have to do that
> is not either recording the trace or calling the syscall?
Nothing. That IS what the thunk would do:
<record syscall entry>
<record syscall exit>
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/