lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/3] utrace-based ftrace "process" engine, v2

* Diego Calleja <diegocg@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sábado 21 Marzo 2009 16:45:01 Ingo Molnar escribió:
>
> > The main issue i see is that no kernel developer i work with on a
> > daily basis uses SystemTap - and i work with a lot of people. Yes, i
> > could perhaps name two or three people from lkml using it, but its
> > average penetration amongst kernel folks is essentially zero.
>
> What about userspace developers? People always talks of systemtap
> as a kernel thing, but my (humble) impression is that kernel
> hackers don't seem to need it that much (maybe for the same
> reasons they didn't a kernel debugger ;), but userspace developers
> do. There're many userspace projects that offer optional compile
> options to enable dtrace probes (some people like apple even ship
> executables of python, perl and ruby with probes by default).
> There're several firefox hackers that switched to dtrace-capable
> systems just because the dtrace-javascript probes enabled them to
> debug javashit code in ways they weren't able in linux or windows.
>
> In my humble opinion a better development environment for linux
> userspace programmers is way more important than whether kernel
> hackers like systemtap or not. So maybe the discussion should be
> less about "does it help kernel hackers?" and more about "does it
> help userspace hackers?". My 2¢...

Well, i consider kernel development to be just another form of
software development, so i dont subscribe to the view that it is
intrinsically different. (Yes, the kernel has many unique aspects -
but most software projects have unique aspects.)

In terms of development methodology and tools, in fact i claim that
the kernel workflow and style of development can be applied to most
user-space software projects with great success.

So ... if a new development tool is apparently not (yet?) suited to
a very large and sanely developed software project like the Linux
kernel, i dont take that as an encouraging sign.

Also, there's practical aspects: the kernel is what we know best so
if we can make it work well for the kernel, hopes are that other
large projects can use it too. If we _only_ make the tool good for
non-kernel purposes, who else will fix it for the kernel? The
icentive to fix it for the kernel will be significantly lower.

Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-03-22 13:21    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans