[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060918161526.GL3951@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 12:15:26 -0400
From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jes Sorensen <jes@....com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Tom Zanussi <zanussi@...ibm.com>,
Richard J Moore <richardj_moore@...ibm.com>,
Michel Dagenais <michel.dagenais@...ymtl.ca>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
William Cohen <wcohen@...hat.com>,
"Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@...igh.org>
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
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists