[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060915191031.GA26754@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 21:10:31 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>, karim@...rsys.com,
Tim Bird <tim.bird@...sony.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Tom Zanussi <zanussi@...ibm.com>, ltt-dev@...fik.org,
Michel Dagenais <michel.dagenais@...ymtl.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108
* Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Sep 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > this is being worked on actively: there's the "djprobes" patchset,
> > which includes a simplified disassembler to analyze common target
> > code and can thus insert much faster, call-a-trampoline-function
> > based tracepoints that are just as fast as (or faster than)
> > compile-time, static tracepoints.
>
> Who is going to implement this for every arch?
someone who is interested enough in that arch growing that capability?
> Is this now the official party line that only archs, which implement
> all of this, can make use of efficient tracing?
that's certainly my preference - kprobes have lots of other advantages
besides tracing. Whether that becomes the "official party line" depends
on the technological analysis of the situation which will ultimately
shape the outcome of this discussion.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists