[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090218222316.GH24507@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:23:16 -0500
From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>, mingo@...e.hu,
rostedt@...dmis.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
acme@...stprotocols.net, fweisbec@...il.com,
compudj@...stal.dyndns.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] new irq tracer
Hi -
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:10:35PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > I really am having a difficult time seeing the use in such narrow
> > > tracers.
> >
> > Part of the problem may come from defining "tracers" as something
> > limited to ftrace engines. Once such tracepoints are in the kernel,
> > more powerful analytical tools may be attached to them.
>
> ftrace graph tracer is by far the most powerful thing I've seen [...]
Be that as it may, what you suggested required separate correlation of
data with /proc/interrupts contents.
> What is limiting are these puny little tracers that have no real value.
Which limited resource would even puny tracers exhaust?
> A much better purpose for these tracepoints would be augmenting data in
> existing tracers like the graph/function/sched tracer.
Be more specific. How would you augment those tracers with e.g.
individual irq numbers, their disposition status (HANDLED etc.).
- 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