[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080415140430.GA6576@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:04:30 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] Marker probes in futex.c
* Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca> wrote:
> * Ingo Molnar (mingo@...e.hu) wrote:
> >
> > * Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> >
> > > See, these tracer tools are my nightmare as member of an
> > > enterprise linux team. They'll make an already hard job even
> > > harder, no thanks!
> >
> > i'm clearly NAK-ing all futex trace hooks until the true impact of
> > the whole marker facility is better understood. I've tried them for
> > the scheduler and they were a clear failure: too bloated and too
> > persistent.
>
> I have not seen any counter argument for the in-depth analysis of the
> instruction cache impact of the optimized markers I've done. Arguing
> that the markers are "bloated" based only on "size kernel/sched.o"
> output is a bit misleading.
uhm, i'm not sure what you mean - how else would you quantify bloat than
to look at the size of the affected subsystem?
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