[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080415161349.GA7444@in.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:43:49 +0530
From: "K. Prasad" <prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] Marker probes in futex.c
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 04:50:09PM +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 08:32:34AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > * Peter Zijlstra (a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl) wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2008-04-15 at 17:23 +0530, K. Prasad wrote:
> > >
> > > > + trace_mark(futex_wait_called, "uaddr:%p fshared:%p val:%u "
> > > > + "abs_time:%p bitset:%d",
> > > > + uaddr, fshared, val, abs_time, bitset);
> > >
> > > This is some seriuosly ugly looking gunk, why would we want stuff like
> > > that scattered across the code?
> > >
> >
> > I don't really see how it differs so much from printks, which kernel
> > developers are already familiar with.
>
> They aren't in every -E codepath, nor they are at the start
> and at the end of every important function (like system call).
>
> Such printks are usually inserted during debugging when you don't care
> about ugliness and these patches will eventually make kernel looks like
> being permanently debugged one.
>
Wondering how useful would printks be when debugging large systems (say
analysing futex contention on a 32-way CPU system)....also to mention
the inability to do a binary dump of the interested data structures.
--K.Prasad
--
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