Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 18 Sep 2006 12:15:26 -0400 | From | "Frank Ch. Eigler" <> | Subject | Re: tracepoint maintainance models |
| |
Hi -
alan wrote:
> [...] So its L1 misses more register reloads and the like. Sounds > more and more like wasted clock cycles for debug. [...]
But it's not just "for debug"! It is for system administrators, end-users, developers.
> Its one thing to dump trace helper data into the kernel, its another > when we all get to pay for it all the time when we don't need to > [...]
Indeed, there will be some non-zero execution-time cost. We must be willing to pay *something* in order to enable this functionality. One question (still: http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/2/22/166) is trading time/space cost; others include cross-platform vs. porting necessity; robustness w.r.t. data-collectionand control-flow preservation.
- FChE [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |