Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 12:11:38 +1000 From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, j@uriah.heep.sax.de Cc: nate@sri.MT.net Subject: Re: ktrace [Was: 2.2-960612-SNAP resolver problems] Message-ID: <199606160211.MAA00203@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> > Does anybody seriously object against putting it into GENERIC? >> >> Yes. It's un-necessary bloat that 95% of the users don't know how to >> use and the other 5% know how to add it. >That's not true. It's relatively easy to teach people about running >their program with a prepended `ktrace'. It's much harder to demand >from them to first recompile a new kernel. (And i can't answer their >questions then why it's not in the default kernel. :) Many other >systems around ship with it enabled and ready to run by default, >including all SysV's (truss) and Linux (strace). Strace seems to be more in the library. Its output is much better. >The bloat is 4 KB, nothing i would consider undue: >text data bss dec hex >1114112 69632 76312 1260056 133a18 kernel >1118208 69632 76312 1264152 134a18 kernel.ktrace 95% of the drivers in GENERIC are unused. Runtime bloat for calling the ktrace hooks for all syscalls is more of a concern, but the fix is the same: don't run GENERIC if you want a small and fast kernel. GENERIC has other options such as FAILSAFE that might eventually cost a lot of time and space to give more robustness. Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606160211.MAA00203>