MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793353921 · doi:10.1145/3158644

Survey and Analysis of Kernel and Userspace Tracers on Linux

2018· review· en· W2793353921 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Computing Surveys · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Data Storage Technologies
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceLinux kernelUser spaceOverhead (engineering)TracingOperating systemKernel (algebra)Stack (abstract data type)System callLegacy systemSoftwareEmbedded systemSoftware engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As applications and operating systems are becoming more complex, the last decade has seen the rise of many tracing tools all across the software stack. This article presents a hands-on comparison of modern tracers on Linux systems, both in user space and kernel space. The authors implement microbenchmarks that not only quantify the overhead of different tracers, but also sample fine-grained metrics that unveil insights into the tracers’ internals and show the cause of each tracer’s overhead. Internal design choices and implementation particularities are discussed, which helps us to understand the challenges of developing tracers. Furthermore, this analysis aims to help users choose and configure their tracers based on their specific requirements to reduce their overhead and get the most of out of them.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.093
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it