From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28950 invoked by alias); 18 Dec 2008 09:42:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 28943 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Dec 2008 09:42:49 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20,KAM_MX X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20,KAM_MX X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (HELO fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp) (192.51.44.36) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 09:42:11 +0000 Received: from mt1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.74]) by fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id mBI9g8s0020069 for (envelope-from kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com); Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:42:08 +0900 Received: from smail (m4 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id E888345DD7A for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:42:07 +0900 (JST) Received: from s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.94]) by m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1A6345DE51 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:42:07 +0900 (JST) Received: from s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CC261DB801B for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:42:07 +0900 (JST) Received: from m106.s.css.fujitsu.com (m106.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.106]) by s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A04C1DB8012 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:42:07 +0900 (JST) Received: from m106.css.fujitsu.com (m106 [127.0.0.1]) by m106.s.css.fujitsu.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F07F85B84C6; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:42:06 +0900 (JST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [10.124.100.179]) by m106.s.css.fujitsu.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6722A5B847F; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:42:06 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro To: "Jun Koi" Subject: Re: Discussion at Linux Foundation Japan Symposium Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, "Satoshi OSHIMA" , systemtap@sourceware.org, mhiramat@redhat.com, hisashi.hashimoto.wh@hitachi.com, "Yumiko SUGITA" In-Reply-To: References: Message-Id: <20081218183714.94C0.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Becky! ver. 2.42 [ja] Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 09:46:00 -0000 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact systemtap-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: systemtap-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-q4/txt/msg00594.txt.bz2 > >> At least, dtrace don't need debuginfo. > >> On Solaris 10, kernel and all executable binary have own tracing purpose > >> information in special elf section. > >> it can't be stripped and gurantee exist although product application binary. > >> > >> http://blogs.sun.com/ali/entry/what_is_sunw_ldynsym > >> > >> > >> Of cource, this approach indicate systemtap lost some feature. > >> (e.g. above section don't have line number information and local > >> variable name information) > >> > >> but it is still useful for average tracing user. > > > > So the way is to include, by default, debug information we need into > > kernel binary? Yes, that solves the problem, provided that they > > (kernel developers) accept that. > > > > The downside is that the kernel binary becomes much much bigger. No. I agree with full DWARF information is _very_ big. but if we want only dtrace level tracing, tracing section is less than few mega byte. Then, I suggest to implement restrected (dtrace level) tracing feature. only the user of using debuginfo can do full tracing. Actually, average tracing user don't need line number proving.