[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006, Jes Sorensen wrote:

> Roman Zippel wrote:
> > The claim that these tracepoints would be maintainance burden is pretty
> > much unproven so far. The static tracepoint haters just assume the kernel
> > will be littered with thousands of unrelated tracepoints, where a good
> > tracepoint would only document what already happens in that function, so
> > that the tracepoint would be far from something obscure, which only few
> > people could understand and maintain.
> How do you propose to handle the case where two tracepoint clients wants
> slightly different data from the same function? I saw this with LTT
> users where someone wanted things in different places in schedule().
> It *is* a nightmare to maintain.

That nightmare would not be with tracepoints itself, but with the users of
it, so you're missing the point.
Tracepoints can be abused of course, but it's quite a leap to conclude
from this that they are bad in general.

> You still haven't explained your argument about kprobes not being
> generally available - where?

Huh? What kind of explanation do you want?

$ grep KPROBES arch/*/Kconf*
arch/i386/Kconfig:config KPROBES
arch/ia64/Kconfig:config KPROBES
arch/powerpc/Kconfig:config KPROBES
arch/sparc64/Kconfig:config KPROBES
arch/x86_64/Kconfig:config KPROBES

bye, Roman
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-09-15 16:07    [W:0.408 / U:2.148 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site