On Thu, 7 Nov 2024 10:52:37 -0500 Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com> wrote:
> I suspect you base the overhead analysis on the x86-64 implementation > of sys_enter/exit tracepoint and especially the overhead caused by > the SYSCALL_WORK_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT thread flag, am I correct ? > > If that is causing a too large overhead, we should investigate if > those can be improved instead of adding tracepoints in the > implementation of system calls. That would be great to get better, but the reason I'm not against this patch is because prctl() is not a normal system call. It's basically an ioctl() for Linux, and very vague. It's basically the garbage system call when you don't know what to do. It's even being proposed for the sframe work. I understand your sentiment and agree. I don't want any random system call to get a tracepoint attached to it. But here I'd make an exception. -- Steve
