Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers

[Ingo Molnar]

* Martin J. Bligh <mbligh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> You know ... it strikes me that there's another way to do this, that's 
> zero overhead when not enabled, and gets rid of the inflexibility in 
> kprobes. It might not work well in all cases, but at least for simple 
> non-inlined functions, it'd seem to.
> 
> Why don't we just copy the whole damned function somewhere else, and 
> make an instrumented copy (as a kernel module)? Then reroute all the 
> function calls through it, instead of the original version. OK, it's 
> not completely trivial to do, but simpler than kprobes (probably doing 
> the switchover atomically is the hard part, but not impossible). 
> There's NO overhead when not using, and much lower than probes when 
> you are.
> 
> That way we can do whatever the hell we please with internal 
> variables, however GCC optimises it, can write flexible instrumenting 
> code to just about anything, program in C as God intended, etc, etc. 
> No, it probably won't fix every case under the sun, but hopefully most 
> of them, and we can still use kprobes/djprobes/bodilyprobes for the 
> rest of the cases.

yeah, this would be nice - if it werent it for function pointers, and if 
all kernel functions were relocatable. But if you can think of a method 
to do this, it would be nice.

	Ingo
-
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/