[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 12:45:55 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] perf: Take a hot regs snapshot for trace
events
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 18:16 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > This is what I actually was wondering about. Why is it a "perf only"
> > trace point instead of a TRACE_EVENT()?
>
> Because I wanted to make perf usable without having to rely on funny
> tracepoints. That is, I am less worried about committing software
> counters to ABI than I am about TRACE_EVENT(), which still gives me a
> terribly uncomfortable feeling.
>
> Also, building with all CONFIG_TRACE_*=n will still yield a usable perf,
> which is something the embedded people might fancy, all that TRACE stuff
> adds lots of code.
We could make TRACE_EVENT() into a perf only trace point with
CONFIG_TRACE_*=n.
Just saying that it would be nice if ftrace could also see page faults
and such.
-- 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