Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 01:45:34 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Pawel Jakub Dawidek <nick@garage.freebsd.pl> Cc: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: running 5.1-RELEASE with no procfs mounted (lockups?) Message-ID: <3F17B3AE.1FD5CAC6@mindspring.com> References: <20030715223653.Y36933-100000@mail.econolodgetulsa.com> <20030718080659.GA26490@garage.freebsd.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > +> truss Relies on the event model of procfs; there have been some > +> initial patches and discussion of migrating truss to ptrace() but > +> I don't think we have anything very usable yet. I'd be happy to > +> be corrected on this. :-) > > Hmm, why to change this behaviour? Is there any functionality that > ktrace(1) doesn't provide? It can interactively run in another window, giving you realtime updates on what's happening up to the point of a kernel crash. With ktrace, you are relatively screwed. Another good example is that it dump out information that ktrace can't, because of where it synchronizes. Some people recently have been seeing "EAGAIN" when they haven't expected it, with the process exiting immediately after that, with no real clue as to where in the code it's happening (e.g. which system call); truss will show this, if run in another terminal window, but ktrace will not (yes, I know it should; it doesn't. If you can't reconcile this with how you think ktrace should work, then fix it). -- Terry
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3F17B3AE.1FD5CAC6>