On 25.08.2018 00:28, Rhialto wrote: > On Thu 23 Aug 2018 at 18:48:32 +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: >> Probably DTrace is not the final word in BSD and not something I intend >> to defend - but it's a good solution for now - (FreeBSD already >> ports/develops a potential replacement eBPF). > > I have played a bit with EBPF on Linux, and it feels weird to use a > "packet filter" bytecode-based thing for performance monitoring. > e in BPF makes a big difference. The new bytecode model is similar to a regular generic purpose (application) CPU. > Don't we already have a bytecode interpreter in the kernel in the form > of Lua? I hardly know anything of Lua, but using that (being an existing > tool) would make somewhat more sense than a glorified packet filter > (which needs a big tool set in the form of clang to compile C to EBPF > bytecode). > There is already a Lua-powered solution for traces in Linux: ktap. It uses nice rules written natively in Lua.. however it seems to be abandoned in favor of eBPF. > -Olaf. >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature