Hi,
Roman Zippel wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:
The foremost issue is still that there is only limited kprobes
support.
The main issue in supporting static tracers are the tracepoints and so
far I haven't seen any convincing proof that the maintainance overhead
of dynamic and static tracepoints has to be significantly different.
Above, weren't you asking about static vs dynamic trace-*points*, rather
than the implementation of the tracer itself. I think Ingo said that
some "static tracepoints" (eg. annotation) could be acceptable.
to both points i (and others) already replied in great detail - please
follow up on them. (I can quote message-IDs if you cannot find them.)
What you basically tell me is (rephrased to make it more clear): Implement
kprobes support or fuck off! You make it very clear, that you're unwilling
to support static tracers even to point to make _any_ static trace support
Now it seems you are talking about compiled vs runtime inserted traces,
which is different. And so far I have to agree with Ingo: dynamic seems
to be better in almost every way. Implementation may be more complex,
but that's never stood in the way of a better solution before, and I
don't think anybody has shown it to be prohibitive ("I won't implement
it" notwithstanding)
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
-
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]
