[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <DA3F0457-83D6-4A95-AC86-188BC1C9B2F0@mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 23:34:33 -0400
From: Theodore Tso <tytso@....EDU>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/18] Allow different tracers to be compiled independently
On Mar 22, 2010, at 9:04 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> I don't know. Yeah this first looks like a good idea but once
> CONFIG_EVENT_TRACING is enabled, each tracepoint is a lightweight
> thing and induce a tiny overhead, probably hard to notice, and
> this is going to be even more the case after the jmp label
> optimization patches.
>
> I liked the fact we had a general tracing kernel once the above
> config is selected. And we don't bother telling people that to
> use tool X you need CONFIG_EVENT_Y, and you need to rebuild your
> kernel, etc...
Indeed, a lot of the value of tracepoints goes away if people are compiling kernels without them and we need to get a special "tracing kernel" installed before we can debug a problem.
So I'd hope we can do the necessary optimization work so people don't feel it's necessary to enable or disable tracepoints by subsystem....
-- Ted
--
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