Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 15 Sep 2006 16:22:34 -0400 | From | Mathieu Desnoyers <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108 |
| |
Please Ingo, stop repeating false argument without taking in account people's corrections :
* Ingo Molnar (mingo@elte.hu) wrote: > sorry, but i disagree. There _is_ a solution that is superior in every > aspect: kprobes + SystemTap. (or any other equivalent dynamic tracer) >
I am sorry to have to repeat myself, but this is not true for heavy loads.
> > At this point you've been rather uncompromising [...] > > yes, i'm rather uncompromising when i sense attempts to push inferior > concepts into the core kernel _when_ a better concept exists here and > today. Especially if the concept being pushed adds more than 350 > tracepoints that expose something to user-space that amounts to a > complex external API, which tracepoints we have little chance of ever > getting rid of under a static tracing concept. > From an earlier email from Tim bird :
"I still think that this is off-topic for the patch posted. I think we should debate the implementation of tracepoints/markers when someone posts a patch for some. I think it's rather scurrilous to complain about code NOT submitted. Ingo has even mis-characterized the not-submitted instrumentation patch, by saying it has 350 tracepoints when it has no such thing. I counted 58 for one architecture (with only 8 being arch-specific)."
Mathieu
OpenPGP public key: http://krystal.dyndns.org:8080/key/compudj.gpg Key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68 - 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/
| |