[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <y0m3basg2ig.fsf@ton.toronto.redhat.com>
Date: 15 Sep 2006 18:59:19 -0400
From: fche@...hat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler)
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: "Jose R. Santos" <jrs@...ibm.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, tglx@...utronix.de,
karim@...rsys.com, Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
Jes Sorensen <jes@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.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
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> writes:
> [...] NOTE: i still accept the temporary (or non-temporary)
> introduction of static markers, to help dynamic tracing. But my
> expectation is that these markers will be less intrusive than static
> tracepoints, and a lot more flexible.
It seems like an agreement on this is coming together. You and Karim
may be in violent agreement, even if others haven't quite come around:
Let us design a static marker mechanism that can be coupled at run
time either to a dynamic system such as systemtap, or by a specialized
tracing system such as lttnng (!). Then "markers" === "static
instrumentation", for purposes of the kernel developer. If the
markers are lightweight enough, then a distribution kernel can afford
keeping them compiled in.
- FChE
-
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