[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0905192041150.7816@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 20:42:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
cc: Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, jiayingz@...gle.com,
mbligh@...gle.com, roland@...hat.com,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] tracepoints: delay argument evaluation
On Tue, 19 May 2009, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>
> Given the tradeoff is taste vs overhead, what do you think of the
> following proposal ?
>
> trace(block_bio_complete, md->queue, bio);
I'm fine with this. It is extremely important that the trace point
overhead is negligible when disabled. Otherwise, they serve no purpose.
-- Steve
--
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