Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:23:16 -0500 | From | "Frank Ch. Eigler" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] new irq tracer |
| |
Hi -
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:10:35PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > I really am having a difficult time seeing the use in such narrow > > > tracers. > > > > Part of the problem may come from defining "tracers" as something > > limited to ftrace engines. Once such tracepoints are in the kernel, > > more powerful analytical tools may be attached to them. > > ftrace graph tracer is by far the most powerful thing I've seen [...]
Be that as it may, what you suggested required separate correlation of data with /proc/interrupts contents.
> What is limiting are these puny little tracers that have no real value.
Which limited resource would even puny tracers exhaust?
> A much better purpose for these tracepoints would be augmenting data in > existing tracers like the graph/function/sched tracer.
Be more specific. How would you augment those tracers with e.g. individual irq numbers, their disposition status (HANDLED etc.).
- FChE
| |