* Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 17:44:25 -0400
> Karim Yaghmour <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > So now you're resorting to your uber-talents as a kernel guru to
> > bury the other side?
>
> It's hardly rocket science - it appears that nobody has ever bothered.
yeah. Performance of kprobes was never really a big issue, kprobes were
always more than fast enough in my opinion. Would be nice if Mathieu
could try to re-run his kprobes test with these patches applied. I still
havent given up on the hope of convincing the LTT folks that they
shouldnt let their sizable codebase drop on the floor but should attempt
to integrate it with kprobes/systemtap. There's nothing wrong with what
LTT gives to users, it's just the tracing engine itself (the static hook
based component) that i have a conceptual problem with - not with the
rest. Most of the know-how of tracers is in the identification of the
information that should be extracted, its linkup and delivery to
user-space tools.
Ingo
-
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]
