[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081106205749.GA20928@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 15:57:49 -0500
From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, alan@...hat.com,
jbaron@...hat.com, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ftrace: add an fsync tracer
Hi -
On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 09:29:03PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> [...]
> I prefer we keep using trace points but do what jason has been proposing
> for a while, which is add a format and arg list to the trace point
> definition.
>
> Something like
>
> DEFINE_TRACE_FMT(sched_switch,
> TPPROTO(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev,
> struct task_struct *next),
> TPARGS(rq, prev, next),
> TPFMT("%d to %d\n", prev->pid, next->pid));
>
> Which would be similar to attaching a trace_mark() to the trace point
> and can in these cases save a lot of lines of code.
Can you explain how this would save any lines of code at all compared
to the trace_mark() example? Both cases still need a bit of
~identical additional code to couple the markers (specified whichever
way) to a trace buffer. Your version has the tracepoint machinery
too, which is strictly additional. Where's the savings?
- FChE
--
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