lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateSat, 16 Sep 2006 10:23:28 +0200
FromIngo Molnar <>
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108

* Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org> wrote:

> > > > Secondly, even people who intend to _eventually_ make use of
> > > > tracing, dont use it most of the time. So why should they have
> > > > more overhead when they are not tracing? Again: the point is not
> > > > moot because even though the user intends to use tracing, but
> > > > does not always want to trace.
> > >
> > > I've used kernels which included static tracing and the perfomance
> > > overhead is negligible for occasional use.
> >
> > how does this suddenly make my point, that "a marker for dynamic
> > tracing has lower performance impact than a static tracepoint, on
> > systems that are not being traced", "moot"?
>
> Why exactly is the point relevant in first place? How exactly is the
> added (minor!) overhead such a fundamental problem?

how could a fundamental performance difference between two markup
schemes be not relevant to kernel design decisions? Which performance
difference i claim derives straight from the conceptual difference
between the two approaches and is thus "unfixable" (and not an
"implementational issue").
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-09-16 10:35    [from the cache]
©2003-2010