From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10899 invoked by alias); 8 Jul 2006 15:59:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 10892 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Jul 2006 15:59:19 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from e5.ny.us.ibm.com (HELO e5.ny.us.ibm.com) (32.97.182.145) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 08 Jul 2006 15:59:16 +0000 Received: from d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (d01relay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.234]) by e5.ny.us.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k68FxEGp006832 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2006 11:59:14 -0400 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (d01av02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.216]) by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.13.6/NCO/VER7.0) with ESMTP id k68FxEun256028 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2006 11:59:14 -0400 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k68FxDSS021390 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2006 11:59:14 -0400 Received: from gorgor.pok.ibm.com (sig-9-65-64-22.mts.ibm.com [9.65.64.22]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k68FxDiJ021387; Sat, 8 Jul 2006 11:59:13 -0400 Received: by gorgor.pok.ibm.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 98D56808049; Sat, 8 Jul 2006 11:59:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 15:59:00 -0000 From: Mike Grundy To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" Cc: Heiko Carstens , Martin Schwidefsky , Jan Glauber , systemtap@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] kprobes for s390 architecture Message-ID: <20060708155924.GB26803@localhost.localdomain> Mail-Followup-To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" , Heiko Carstens , Martin Schwidefsky , Jan Glauber , systemtap@sources.redhat.com References: <20060623150344.GL9446@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <20060623222106.GA25410@osiris.ibm.com> <20060624113641.GB10403@osiris.ibm.com> <1151421789.5390.65.camel@localhost> <20060628055857.GA9452@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <20060707172333.GA12068@localhost.localdomain> <20060707172555.GA10452@osiris.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact systemtap-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: systemtap-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-q3/txt/msg00037.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 03:51:23PM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > Heiko Carstens writes: > > > [...] > > > It works, and I guess at this point is the only way to do it. I'll send out a > > > full patch with this and the other cleanups later. > > > > How fast is this if you have to exchange several hundred instructions? > > That's a very appropriate question. Related to it is in general how > fast is it to insert and remove ordinary breakpoints on even non-s390 > platforms. Several RH folks recently found that > probe kernel.function("*") {} > took only a few seconds to insert the probes, but a few *minutes* to > remove them at session shutdown. Maybe it would make sense to batch large numbers of arms/disarms? It would be up to the module writer to understand that they were inserting a large number of probes at once and pass a list of probe structures for example. - Mike