This is the mail archive of the
systemtap@sourceware.org
mailing list for the systemtap project.
Re: static probes
- From: "Jose R. Santos" <jrs at us dot ibm dot com>
- To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche at redhat dot com>
- Cc: systemtap at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 22:32:29 -0600
- Subject: Re: static probes
- References: <20060330154333.GM599@redhat.com>
- Reply-to: jrs at us dot ibm dot com
Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
To place a probe on such a marker, the CVS systemtap now understands
probe kernel.mark("name") { ... }
or probe module("m").mark("name") { ... }
Wildcards in the names are supported as usual. For these probes,
systemtap does NOT require/use debugging information, so we're not
at the mercy of gcc.
Sounds interesting. Would it be possible for SystemTap to check for the
availability of a static probe before reverting to kprobing a kernel
function? The reason I ask is that for LKET, fast static probe that can
be inserted anywhere would be useful for our trace hooks, but if the
kernel lack a particular static probe but the same probe can dynamically
iinserted, then we can use the alternative dynamic probe with out
requiring changes to the LKET code to handle both scenarios.
-JRS