Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 4 Apr 2007 19:30:26 +0800
From:      "Howard Su" <howard0su@gmail.com>
To:        "Alfred Perlstein" <alfred@freebsd.org>
Cc:        current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: [Review] Remove procfs dependency of truss
Message-ID:  <f126fae00704040430o4cd2c64fqb0fb0ab387a01bf@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20070404101222.GU61362@elvis.mu.org>
References:  <f126fae00704040118w25a7b291xdcf1b6300bab1ceb@mail.gmail.com> <20070404101222.GU61362@elvis.mu.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 4/4/07, Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> wrote:
> * Howard Su <howard0su@gmail.com> [070404 01:20] wrote:
> > Following the suggestion in idea page, I proposed the attached patch.
> > I didn't change any kernel part because I think PTRACE(2) is
> > functional although man page didn't document it.
> >
> > I tested the patch under i386 and amd64 box. The help on testing and
> > code review will be appreciated.
>
> wow, well done!  any draw backs to using ptrace over procfs?
I didn't see.
>
> have you tested performance?
Not yet. Base on the number of kernel syscall, new implementaion keep
in a same level. However ptrace calls has a short code path compare to
generic read syscall. I suppose there will be some improvement.
Anyway, I will try to get perf data.
>
> -Alfred
>
>

-- 
-Howard



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?f126fae00704040430o4cd2c64fqb0fb0ab387a01bf>