Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 15 Sep 2006 16:49:17 -0500 | From | "Jose R. Santos" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108 |
| |
Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 20:19:07 +0200 > Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: > > > > > * Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote: > > > > > What Karim is sharing with us here (yet again) is the real in-field > > > experience of real users (ie: not kernel developers). > > > > well, Jes has that experience and Thomas too. > > systemtap and ltt are the only full-scale tracing tools which target > sysadmins and applciation developers of which I am aware.. >
IMO, I think SystemTap is to generic of a tool to be considered a tracing tool. LKET and LKST are more comparable with the functionality that LTT provides. LKET is implemented using SystemTap while LKST has both a SystemTap and static kernel patch implementation.
> In the bit of text which you snipped I was agreeing with this... > > Look, if Karim and Frank (who I assume is a systemtap developer) think that > we need static tracepoints then I have no reason to disagree with them. > What I would propose is that: > > a) Those tracepoints be integrated one at a time on well-understood > grounds of necessity. Tracepoints _should_ be added dynamically. But > if there are instances where that's not working and cannot be made to > work then OK, in we go. > Agree. What would be the criteria that justifies having static probe vs a dynamic one?
-JRS
- 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/
| |