lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-09-18 18:21    [W:1.740 / U:0.260 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site