lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-09-15 23:51    [W:2.325 / U:0.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site