[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:0.021 / U:8.896 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site