Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108 | From | Jes Sorensen <> | Date | 15 Sep 2006 05:29:24 -0400 |
| |
>>>>> "Ingo" == Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> writes:
Ingo> * Martin Bligh <mbligh@mbligh.org> wrote:
>> I don't think anyone is saying that static tracepoints do not have >> their limitations, or that dynamic tracepointing is useless. But >> that's not the point ... why can't we have one infrastructure that >> supports both? Preferably in a fairly simple, consistent way.
Ingo> primarily because i fail to see any property of static tracers Ingo> that are not met by dynamic tracers. So to me dynamic tracers Ingo> like SystemTap are a superset of static tracers.
Ingo> So my position is that what we should concentrate on is to make Ingo> the life of dynamic tracers easier (be that a handful of Ingo> generic, parametric hooks that gather debuginfo information and Ingo> add NOPs for easy patching), while realizing that static tracers Ingo> have no advantage over dynamic tracers.
The parallel that springs to mind here is C++ kernel components 'I promise to only use the good parts', then next week someone else adds another pile in a worse place. Once the points are in we will never get rid of them, look at how long it took to get rid of devfs :( In addition it is guaranteed that people will not be able to agree on which points to put where, despite the claim that there will be only 30 points - sorry, I am not buying that, we have plenty of evidence to show the opposite.
I looked at the old LTT code a while ago and it was pretty appalling, maybe LTTng is better, but I can't say the old code gave me a warm fuzzy feeling.
Jes - 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/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |