Re: linux-next: add utrace tree

From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
Date: Wed Jan 20 2010 - 01:16:07 EST

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 06:49:50AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:


> Note, i'm not yet convinced that this (and the rest: uprobes and systemtap,
> etc.) can go uptream in its present form.

Agreed, uprobes is still not upstream ready -- it was an RFC. We are
working through the comments there to get it ready for merger.

> IMHO the far more important thing to address beyond formalities and workflow
> cleanliness are the (many) technical observations and objections offered by
> Peter Zijstra on lkml. Not just the git history but also the abstractions and
> concepts are messy and should be reworked IMO, and also good and working perf
> events integration should be achieved, etc.

I think Oleg addressed most of Peter's concerns on utrace when the
ptrace/utrace patchset was reposted.

Perf integration with uprobes will be done and discussions have started
with Masami and Frederic. There are a couple of fundamental technical
aspects (XOL vma vs. emulation; breakpoint insertion through CoW and not
through quiesce) that need resolution.

> The fact that there's a well established upstream workflow for instrumentation
> patches, which is being routed around by the utrace/uprobes/systemtap code
> here is not a good sign in terms of reaching a good upstream solution. Lets
> hope it works out well though.


On the other hand, having ptrace/utrace in the -next tree will give it a
lot more testing, while any outstanding technical issues are being addressed.

To exercise ptrace/utrace, it would be very useful if you pulled in

git:// branch utrace-ptrace

instead of 'master'.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at