[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080223104038.0599a30d.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 10:40:38 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sandmann@...hat.com, tglx@...x.de,
hpa@...or.com, John Levon <levon@...ementarian.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: add the debugfs interface for the sysprof tool
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:37:24 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> * Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> > > Sysprof needs a 200 line kernel module to do it's work, this module
> > > puts some simple profiling data into debugfs.
> > >
> > > ...
> >
> > Seems a poor idea to me. Sure, oprofile is "hard to set up", but not
> > if your distributor already did it for you.
>
> two things.
>
> Firstly, this isnt an oprofile replacement, this is a pretty separate
> concept. Sysprof is more of a tracer than a profiler.
I don't understand the distinction and I don't see what sysprof (as defined
by its kernel->userspace interface) can do which oprofile cannot.
This is yet another thing which should have been in the damned changlog but
wasn't.
> (and we are
> currently working on merging it into ftrace)
I think you should drop it and we should see a replacement patch which has
all the bugs, inefficiencies and deficiencies addressed and which has a
vaguely respectable description.
> Secondly, real developers who tune user-space code disagree with your
> characterisation of oprofile being easy to use.
afacit all of these criticisms surround oprofile's userspace tools only.
--
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