Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 17 Sep 2006 01:24:46 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [patch] kprobes: optimize branch placement |
| |
* Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 17:44:25 -0400 > Karim Yaghmour <karim@opersys.com> wrote: > > > So now you're resorting to your uber-talents as a kernel guru to > > bury the other side? > > It's hardly rocket science - it appears that nobody has ever bothered.
yeah. Performance of kprobes was never really a big issue, kprobes were always more than fast enough in my opinion. Would be nice if Mathieu could try to re-run his kprobes test with these patches applied. I still havent given up on the hope of convincing the LTT folks that they shouldnt let their sizable codebase drop on the floor but should attempt to integrate it with kprobes/systemtap. There's nothing wrong with what LTT gives to users, it's just the tracing engine itself (the static hook based component) that i have a conceptual problem with - not with the rest. Most of the know-how of tracers is in the identification of the information that should be extracted, its linkup and delivery to user-space tools.
Ingo - 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/
| |