if there are lots of tracepoints (and the union of _all_ useful
tracepoints that i ever encountered in my life goes into the thousands)
then the overhead is not zero at all.
also, the other disadvantages i listed very much count too. Static
tracepoints are fundamentally limited because:
- they can only be added at the source code level
- modifying them requires a reboot which is not practical in a
production environment
- there can only be a limited set of them, while many problems need
finegrained tracepoints tailored to the problem at hand
- conditional tracepoints are typically either nonexistent or very
limited.
for me these are all _independent_ grounds for rejection, as a generic
kernel infrastructure.
I don't think anyone is saying that static tracepoints do not have their
limitations, or that dynamic tracepointing is useless. But that's not
the point ... why can't we have one infrastructure that supports both?
Preferably in a fairly simple, consistent way.
M.
-
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/
[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]
