[lkml]   [2004]   [Jul]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: LTT user input
    On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 18:40:26 -0400, Robert Wisniewski wrote:
    > > Looking for a common base was certainly easier before one tracing
    > > framework got merged. I don't claim to know if a common basic framework
    > > would be beneficial, but I am somewhat amazed that not more effort has
    > > gone into exploring this.
    > Argh. I had up to this point been passively following this thread because
    > a while ago, prior to dtrace and other such work I, Karim, and others
    > invested quite of bit of effort and time responding to this group pointing
    > out the benefits of performance monitoring via tracing and
    > IN FACT this was exactly one of the points I ardently made. Having each
    > subsystem set up their own monitoring was not only counter productive in
    > terms of time and implementation effort, but prevented a unified view of
    > performance from being achieved. Nevertheless, it appears that some

    This may be somewhat of a misunderstanding: You seem to be talking about
    a unified framework for performance monitoring -- something I silently
    assumed should be the case, while the discussion here was about various
    forms of logging -- with performance monitoring being one of them.

    So the question is (again, this is an issue that has been raised at the
    kernel summit as well): Is there some overlap between those various
    frameworks? Or do we really need completely separate frameworks for
    logging time stamps (performance), auditing information, etc.?

    > proclaimed by dtrace. As Karim has pointed out in previous posts, though
    > the technical concerns that were raised were addressed, it didn't seem to
    > help as other nits would crop up appearing to imply that something else was
    > happening.

    My postings were motivated by my personal interest in better tracing
    and monitoring facilities. However, I'm getting LKCD flashbacks when
    reading your arguments. Which doesn't bode well.

    > If indeed the remaining issue is whether there is a benefit to
    > a performance monitoring infrastructure, then I wonder how you would
    > interpret reactions to dtrace.

    DTrace is not a performance monitoring infrastructure, so what's your
    point? -- But let's assume for the sake of argument that LTT, dprobes
    & Co. provide something comparable to DTrace, and we just disagree on
    what "performance monitoring" means: The chance of getting such a pile
    of complexity into mainline are virtually zero (unless it's called ACPI
    and required to boot some machines :-/).

    So what you can push for inclusion is bound to be a subset, and the
    question remains: What does such a subset, which is clearly nothing
    like DTrace, offer?

    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: 2005-03-22 14:04    [W:3.732 / U:0.128 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site