[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1235387487.4645.28.camel@laptop>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:11:27 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, zippel@...ux-m68k.org,
linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing/markers: make markers select tracepoints
On Sun, 2009-02-22 at 07:24 -0500, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Hi -
>
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 01:14:36PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > I would like to never merge an ftrace_printk() user... just as I'd like
> > > > to get rid of every marker.
> > >
> > > But why? They solve a problem well enough that Ingo had in effect
> > > reinvented them on Friday.
> >
> > Because after a printk() debug spree, I don't commit them, I toss them
> > out and keep the fix.
>
> Markers solve a problem closer to tracepoints than to debugging
> printk's.
Not so. In both cases the regular stuff (NMI trace, OOPS,
function/graph/sched trace, etc) is not enough and you wish to augment
its output.
> In this context, the main difference between tracepoints is that
> markers need almost no hand-written glue code of the sort that make up
> ftrace engines that just trace simple values. Simpler & smaller code
> for the same output seems like a win.
Right, for dumb tracers that's true I suppose, however any
high-bandwidth tracer will try to avoid putting silly ASCII strings in
and will therefore need to write more glue code.
Which reduces these default thingies to printk() level debugging.
--
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