Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 18 Sep 2006 02:05:19 +0200 (CEST) | From | Roman Zippel <> | Subject | Re: tracepoint maintainance models |
| |
Hi,
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> what is being proposed here is entirely different from dprobes though: > Roman suggests that he doesnt want to implement kprobes on his arch, and > he wants LTT to remain an _all-static_ tracer. [...] > > Even if the LTT folks proposed to "compromise" to 50 tracepoints - users > of static tracers would likely _not_ be willing to compromise, so there > would be a constant (and I say unnecessary) battle going on for the > increase of the number of static markers. Static markers, if done for > static tracers, have "viral" (Roman: here i mean "auto-spreading", not > "disease") properties in that sense - they want to spread to alot larger > area of code than they start out from.
1. It's not that I don't want to, but I _can't_ implement kprobes and not due to lack of skills, but lack of resources. (There is a subtle but important difference.) 2. I don't want LTT to be "all static tracer" at all, I want it to be usable as a static tracer, so that on archs where kprobes are available it can use them of course. This puts your second paragraph in a new perspective, since the userbase and thus the pressure for more and more static tracepoints would be different.
bye, Roman - 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/
| |