[lkml]   [2009]   [Feb]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [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

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-02-18 23:27    [W:0.081 / U:10.848 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site