Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Mon, 18 Sep 2006 02:59:28 +1000 | | From | Nick Piggin <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108 |
| |
Hi,
Roman Zippel wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, 17 Sep 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > >>>The foremost issue is still that there is only limited kprobes >>>support. >> >>>The main issue in supporting static tracers are the tracepoints and so >>>far I haven't seen any convincing proof that the maintainance overhead >>>of dynamic and static tracepoints has to be significantly different.
Above, weren't you asking about static vs dynamic trace-*points*, rather than the implementation of the tracer itself. I think Ingo said that some "static tracepoints" (eg. annotation) could be acceptable.
>>to both points i (and others) already replied in great detail - please >>follow up on them. (I can quote message-IDs if you cannot find them.) > > > What you basically tell me is (rephrased to make it more clear): Implement > kprobes support or fuck off! You make it very clear, that you're unwilling > to support static tracers even to point to make _any_ static trace support
Now it seems you are talking about compiled vs runtime inserted traces, which is different. And so far I have to agree with Ingo: dynamic seems to be better in almost every way. Implementation may be more complex, but that's never stood in the way of a better solution before, and I don't think anybody has shown it to be prohibitive ("I won't implement it" notwithstanding)
-- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
- 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/
|  |