Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:40:03 -0400 | From | Masami Hiramatsu <> | Subject | Re: Kernel marker has no performance impact on ia64. |
| |
Hi Mathieu,
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: >>> Maybe we could settle for an intermediate solution : I agree with you >>> that defining the trace points in headers, like you did for the >>> scheduler, makes the code much cleaner and makes things much easier to >>> maintain afterward. However, having the trace_mark mechanism underneath >>> helps a lot in plugging a generic tracer (actually, if we can settle the >>> marker issue, I've got a kernel tracer, LTTng, that I've been waiting >>> for quite a while to push to mainline that I would like to post someday). >> That's good to me. >> BTW, I'd like to know your plan, would those static inline functions be >> defined in new headers or marker.h(or other existing headers)? >> > > Hi Masami, > > What do you think of kernel/sched-trace.h for the scheduler as proposed > by Peter ? Having these headers close to the c file instrumentation they > deal with seems to scale maintenance better. Placing all these in one > big kernel header included everywhere would require to recompile the > whole kernel when the header is touched, which is, I guess, not what we > want.
I agree with you, one big kernel header is hard to maintain, especially by patches :-)
Thanks,
-- Masami Hiramatsu
Software Engineer Hitachi Computer Products (America) Inc. Software Solutions Division
e-mail: mhiramat@redhat.com
| |