[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108

Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>The foremost issue is still that there is only limited kprobes
>>>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

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-09-17 19:03    [W:0.283 / U:1.944 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site