Hi - On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 03:36:24PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > [...] > > If you don't allow yourself to presume on-the-fly function > > recompilation, then these markers would need to be made run-time > > rather than compile-time configurable. That is, not like this: > > [...] > By making them run-time configurable, I don't see any whay not to bloat the > kernel. How can be embed calls to printk+function+kprobe+djprobe without > having some kind of performance impact ? In order to have what we appear to need, we cannot avoid having some impact. (Even NOPs have impact.) Suppose that mbligh's clever but speculative idea has some nasty flaw, once someone tried to reduce it to code. Do you see that markers along the lines you've posted would be unsatisfactory? With that in mind, is there point adding such markers now? - FChE
Attachment:
pgpdcyg5i6Otw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.2 for Linux 2.6.17
- From: Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.2 for Linux 2.6.17
- References:
- [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.2 for Linux 2.6.17
- From: Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.2 for Linux 2.6.17
- From: [email protected] (Frank Ch. Eigler)
- Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.2 for Linux 2.6.17
- From: Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]>
- [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.2 for Linux 2.6.17
- Prev by Date: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH] PowerOP, PowerOP Core, 1/2
- Next by Date: Re: Network performance degradation from 2.6.11.12 to 2.6.16.20
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.2 for Linux 2.6.17
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.2 for Linux 2.6.17
- Index(es):
 |