Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Fri, 15 Sep 2006 23:27:58 +0200 (CEST) | | From | Roman Zippel <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108 |
| |
Hi,
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Nobody is taking dynamic tracing away! > > You make it sound that tracing is only possible via dynamic traces. > > If I want to use static tracepoints, why shouldn't I? > > because: > > - static tracepoints, once added, are very hard to remove - up until > eternity. (On the other hand, markers for dynamic tracers are easily > removed, either via making the dynamic tracer smarter, or by > detaching the marker via the patch(1) method. In any case, if a > marker goes away then hell does not break loose in dynamic tracing > land - but it does in static tracing land.
This is simply not true, at the source level you can remove a static tracepoint as easily as a dynamic tracepoint, the effect of the missing trace information is the same either way.
> - the markers needed for dynamic tracing are different from the LTT > static tracepoints.
What makes the requirements so different? I would actually think it depends on the user independent of the tracing is done.
> - a marker for dynamic tracing has lower performance impact than a > static tracepoint, on systems that are not being traced. (but which > have the tracing infrastructure enabled otherwise)
Anyone using static tracing intents to use, which makes this point moot.
> - having static tracepoints dillutes the incentive for architectures to > implement proper kprobes support.
Considering the level of work needed to support efficient dynamic tracing it only withholds archs from tracing support for no good reason.
> > > > there are separate project teams is because managers in key > > > > positions made the decision that they'd rather break from existing > > > > projects which had had little success mainlining and instead use > > > > their corporate bodyweight to pressure/seduce kernel developers > > > > working for them into pushing their new great which-aboslutely- > > > > has-nothing-to-do-with-this-ltt-crap-(no,no, we actually agree > > > > with you kernel developers that this is crap, this is why we're > > > > developing this new amazing thing). That's the truth plain and > > > > simple. > > > > > > Stop whining! > > > > So we're back to personal attacks now. :-( > > hm, so you dont consider the above paragraph a whine. How would you > characterize it then? A measured, balanced, on-topic technical comment? > I'm truly curious.
It's sarcastic, but considering the disrespect towards Karim, I don't blame him. At some point the "whining" argument was funny, but lately it's only used to descredit people.
bye, Roman - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |