* Howard Su <howard0su_at_gmail.com> [070404 04:35] wrote: > On 4/4/07, Alfred Perlstein <alfred_at_freebsd.org> wrote: > >* Howard Su <howard0su_at_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 PerlsteinReceived on Wed Apr 04 2007 - 15:18:00 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:07 UTC