[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081116075928.GB530@elte.hu>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 08:59:28 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [patch 06/16] Markers auto enable tracepoints (new API :
trace_mark_tp())
* Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca> wrote:
> Add a new API trace_mark_tp(), which declares a marker within a
> tracepoint probe. When the marker is activated, the tracepoint is
> automatically enabled.
>
> No branch test is used at the marker site, because it would be a
> duplicate of the branch already present in the tracepoint.
>
> Impact: new API.
i dont know.
I was actually hoping for markers (the in-kernel API) to go away
completely - and be replaced with tracepoints.
Markers are the wrong design on several levels. They couple the kernel
dynamically with unknown (to the kernel) entities - and that is
causing complexity all around the place, clearly expressed in these
patches of yours.
Tracepoints are much more specific - typed and enumerated function
call callback points in essence - with some politeness that allows
external instrumentation entities to attach to those callbacks.
Is there any usecase of markers that should not be converted to either
tracepoints or to ftrace_printk() ?
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