Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 10:18:00 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> To: Howard Su <howard0su@gmail.com> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [Review] Remove procfs dependency of truss Message-ID: <20070404171800.GW61362@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <f126fae00704040430o4cd2c64fqb0fb0ab387a01bf@mail.gmail.com> References: <f126fae00704040118w25a7b291xdcf1b6300bab1ceb@mail.gmail.com> <20070404101222.GU61362@elvis.mu.org> <f126fae00704040430o4cd2c64fqb0fb0ab387a01bf@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Howard Su <howard0su@gmail.com> [070404 04:35] wrote: > 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. Thank you very much for the work, perhaps if the performance is slower we can make it a runtime option? Regardless, very well done, it's nice not to have this depend on procfs any longer! -- - Alfred Perlstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070404171800.GW61362>