Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 20:19:07 +0200
Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> * Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > What Karim is sharing with us here (yet again) is the real in-field
> > experience of real users (ie: not kernel developers).
>
> well, Jes has that experience and Thomas too.
systemtap and ltt are the only full-scale tracing tools which target
sysadmins and applciation developers of which I am aware..
IMO, I think SystemTap is to generic of a tool to be considered a
tracing tool. LKET and LKST are more comparable with the functionality
that LTT provides. LKET is implemented using SystemTap while LKST has
both a SystemTap and static kernel patch implementation.
In the bit of text which you snipped I was agreeing with this...
Look, if Karim and Frank (who I assume is a systemtap developer) think that
we need static tracepoints then I have no reason to disagree with them.
What I would propose is that:
a) Those tracepoints be integrated one at a time on well-understood
grounds of necessity. Tracepoints _should_ be added dynamically. But
if there are instances where that's not working and cannot be made to
work then OK, in we go.
Agree. What would be the criteria that justifies having static probe vs
a dynamic one?
-JRS
-
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]
