Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Sat, 16 Sep 2006 10:23:28 +0200 | | From | Ingo Molnar <> | | Subject | Re: [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/
|  |