[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080220143654.20ae7bea@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:36:54 -0800
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, sandmann@...hat.com,
tglx@...x.de, hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: add the debugfs interface for the sysprof tool
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:44:29 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 13:07 -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 21:58:42 +0100
> > Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 11:26 -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > >
> > > > feel free to reinvent a whole GUI just to avoid a 200 line
> > > > kernel module. sysprof is here. it works.
> > >
> > > > the gui is REALLY nice.
> > >
> > > I guess we have to agree to disagree here. Its plain useless from
> > > my POV.
> >
> > that's fine. Different tools for different people. sysprof isn't
> > aimed at kernel developers.
>
> That was speaking from userland days.
>
> But you forgot the more important points about API and wild-growth of
> duplicate interfaces.
yes there's multiple interfaces. There are multiple interfaces *today*.
Oprofile/perfmon2 are very focused on CPU events and have complex interfaces,
sysprof has a much more simple interface (and yes, very specific to syspref)
that just focuses on samples.
Sadly, I think there's use for both, and forcing both into the same straightjacket is a mistake imo.
--
If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@...ux.intel.com
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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