Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 10 Dec 2018 11:18:18 +0100 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/8] perf: Allow to block process in syscall tracepoints |
| |
On Sat, Dec 08, 2018 at 12:38:05PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Sat, 8 Dec 2018 11:44:23 +0100 > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > > Why do we care about lost events? Because strace records *all* events, > > > as that's what it does and that's what it always has done. It would be > > > a break in functionality (a regression) if it were to start losing > > > events. I use strace to see everything that an application is doing. > > > > So make a new tool; break the expectation of all events. See if there's > > anybody that really cares. > > Basically you are saying, break strace and see if anyone notices?
Nah, give it a new name. Clearly mark this is a new tool.
> > > When we discussed this at plumbers, Oracle people came to me and said > > > how awesome it would be to run strace against their database accesses. > > > The problem today is that strace causes such a large overhead that it > > > isn't feasible to trace any high speed applications, especially if > > > there are time restraints involved. > > > > So have them run that perf thing acme pointed to. > > > > So far nobody's made a good argument for why we cannot have LOST events. > > If you don't see the use case, I'm not sure anyone can convince you. > Again, I like the fact that when I do a strace of an application I know > that all system calls that the application I'm tracing is recorded. I > don't need to worry about what happened in the "lost events" space.
You're the one pushing for this crap without _any_ justification. Why are you getting upset if I ask for some?
If people care so much, it shouldn't be hard to write up a coherent story on this, so far all I seem to get is: because it's always been like that.
Which really isn't much of an argument.
| |