Re: [PATCH 1/8] perf: Allow to block process in syscall tracepoints
From: Steven Rostedt
Date: Sat Dec 08 2018 - 12:38:11 EST
On Sat, 8 Dec 2018 11:44:23 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> It's a tool I haven't used in years, given we have so many better tools
> around these days.
So because you don't use it, it's useless? As you don't care about lost
events I can see why you may think there are better tools out there.
But since those tools don't guarantee no lost events, they are
obviously not better to those that do care about lost events.
> > Why do we care about lost events? Because strace records *all* events,
> > as that's what it does and that's what it always has done. It would be
> > a break in functionality (a regression) if it were to start losing
> > events. I use strace to see everything that an application is doing.
> So make a new tool; break the expectation of all events. See if there's
> anybody that really cares.
Basically you are saying, break strace and see if anyone notices?
> > When we discussed this at plumbers, Oracle people came to me and said
> > how awesome it would be to run strace against their database accesses.
> > The problem today is that strace causes such a large overhead that it
> > isn't feasible to trace any high speed applications, especially if
> > there are time restraints involved.
> So have them run that perf thing acme pointed to.
> So far nobody's made a good argument for why we cannot have LOST events.
If you don't see the use case, I'm not sure anyone can convince you.
Again, I like the fact that when I do a strace of an application I know
that all system calls that the application I'm tracing is recorded. I
don't need to worry about what happened in the "lost events" space.