Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 02:33:01 +0100 From: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> To: "Robert N. M. Watson" <rwatson@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Let gcore use ptrace interface rather than the procfs Message-ID: <3bbf2fe10911181733j598083feiddf3d4b34d0007d6@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <9C740225-CB30-4D26-8E4B-F9D5DC51B899@FreeBSD.org> References: <3bbf2fe10911160718j7784b311g2980aa02c79bc9ec@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0911171120050.47035@fledge.watson.org> <20091117141713.GA51251@sandvine.com> <9C740225-CB30-4D26-8E4B-F9D5DC51B899@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2009/11/17 Robert N. M. Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>: > > On 17 Nov 2009, at 14:17, Ed Maste wrote: > >> Our original motivation for doing this was to make gcore work with >> threaded apps, not avoiding procfs, but that's a useful side-effect of >> the work. Note though that for that purpose it isn't complete; procfs >> is still used in readmap to read the process' memory map. It looks like >> we need to find a way to implement readmap without procfs. > > Are the sysctls used for procstat -v sufficient for this purpose? This patch should address the arised concerns by both of you: http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/Sandvine/STABLE_8/gcore/gcore2.diff and additively fix elf_getstatus() to not use procfs, so that gcore is completely procfs independent now. Comments, reviews and testing are welcome. Thanks, Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3bbf2fe10911181733j598083feiddf3d4b34d0007d6>