[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060916082107.GB6317@elte.hu>
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 10:21:07 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, karim@...rsys.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>, Jes Sorensen <jes@....com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
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
* Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
> [...] It would also add virtually no maintainance overhead as you like
> to claim - how often does this function change?
as i said, roughly half of the tracepoints are like this - and some of
them in functions in frequented places. That's far from "virtually no
maintainance overhead". In the -rt tree i have never more than a dozen
static tracepoints, yet even this small amount caused at least 5 extra
-rt tree iterations due to various breakages (build problems or even
crashes). Cruft comes in small steps, and my worry is that such
_unremovable_ markups will be cruft that never shrinks. With dynamic
tracers i see the _chance_ for cruft to shift to places where it does
not hurt, if that cruft turns out to become a hindrance.
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