Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108

Hi,

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> i have one very fundamental question: why should we do this 
> source-intrusive method of adding tracepoints instead of the dynamic, 
> unintrusive (and thus zero-overhead) KProbes+SystemTap method?

Could you define "zero-overhead"?
Actual implementation aside having a core number of tracepoints is far 
more portable than KProbes.

bye, Roman
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108
    • From: Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: LM85 problems with 2.6.16.x
• Next by Date: Re: argh! it's reiserfs deadlocking! [was: Re: JFS - real deadlock and lockdep warning (2.6.18-rc5-mm1)]
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]