Hi,
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> what is being proposed here is entirely different from dprobes though:
> Roman suggests that he doesnt want to implement kprobes on his arch, and
> he wants LTT to remain an _all-static_ tracer. [...]
>
> Even if the LTT folks proposed to "compromise" to 50 tracepoints - users
> of static tracers would likely _not_ be willing to compromise, so there
> would be a constant (and I say unnecessary) battle going on for the
> increase of the number of static markers. Static markers, if done for
> static tracers, have "viral" (Roman: here i mean "auto-spreading", not
> "disease") properties in that sense - they want to spread to alot larger
> area of code than they start out from.
1. It's not that I don't want to, but I _can't_ implement kprobes and not
due to lack of skills, but lack of resources. (There is a subtle but
important difference.)
2. I don't want LTT to be "all static tracer" at all, I want it to be
usable as a static tracer, so that on archs where kprobes are available it
can use them of course. This puts your second paragraph in a new
perspective, since the userbase and thus the pressure for more and more
static tracepoints would be different.
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/
[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]
