* Frank Ch. Eigler ([email protected]) wrote: > Hi - > > On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 03:36:24PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > > [...] > > > If you don't allow yourself to presume on-the-fly function > > > recompilation, then these markers would need to be made run-time > > > rather than compile-time configurable. That is, not like this: > > > [...] > > > By making them run-time configurable, I don't see any whay not to bloat the > > kernel. How can be embed calls to printk+function+kprobe+djprobe without > > having some kind of performance impact ? > > In order to have what we appear to need, we cannot avoid having some > impact. (Even NOPs have impact.) > I am all for giving this decision to the end-user or the distribution which will configure the kernel. There is no "perfect" or "for all" solution that I am aware of. * Users debugging servers will more likely want the kprobe or jprobe option. * Users interested in high performance tracing will want fprobe and/or jprobe. * Users interested in embedded systems will want to avoid tools outside the kernel that rely on module loading : their kernel often not even support modules. -> fprobe > Suppose that mbligh's clever but speculative idea has some nasty flaw, > once someone tried to reduce it to code. Do you see that markers > along the lines you've posted would be unsatisfactory? With that in > mind, is there point adding such markers now? > M. Bligh's idea is an interesting use of fprobes through modules that could make dynamic tracing more effective for accessing local variables. It does not change anything to the various needs of the above-mentioned class of users, except that it may make life of high performance and server users easier. With or without his idea, the goal of this marker mechanism is to meet all those user's different needs. Mathieu OpenPGP public key: http://krystal.dyndns.org:8080/key/compudj.gpg Key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.2 for Linux 2.6.17
- From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.2 for Linux 2.6.17
- References:
- [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.2 for Linux 2.6.17
- From: Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.2 for Linux 2.6.17
- From: [email protected] (Frank Ch. Eigler)
- Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.2 for Linux 2.6.17
- From: Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.2 for Linux 2.6.17
- From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <[email protected]>
- [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.2 for Linux 2.6.17
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH V3] VIA IRQ quirk behaviour change
- Next by Date: Re: Network performance degradation from 2.6.11.12 to 2.6.16.20
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.2 for Linux 2.6.17
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.2 for Linux 2.6.17
- Index(es):