* Ingo Molnar ([email protected]) wrote: > > * Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Well, I'm afraid the collection approach "trace" is currently taking won't > > allow > > this kind of dependency wakeup chain tracking, because they focus on > > tracing > > operations happening on a thread and its children, but the reality is that > > the > > wakeup chains often spread outside of this scope. > > > > This is why lttngtrace gathers a system-wide trace even though we're mostly > > intested in the wait/wakeups of a specific PID. > > Mathieu, what you say is factually wrong - of course perf events allows > system-wide tracing, it always did.
Ah, good to know. Reading through your announcement, I thought that the "trace" tool was only following processes and their children (I know that perf allows system-wide tracing). However, there seems to be some incompatibilities between the will to make the "trace" tool usable from non-root users and the will to gather a system-wide trace. I'm actually struggling with the same issue with lttngtrace. So far, I've taken the approach to only allow root to perform this kind of operation, which is much more limiting than what strace currently does. I was wondering if you had thought about this problem. Thanks, Mathieu -- Mathieu Desnoyers Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com _______________________________________________ ltt-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev
