linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCHSET] sched,perf: unify tracers in sched and move perf on top of TP

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 05 May 2010 11:54:52 +0200
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	mingo@...e.hu, efault@....de, avi@...hat.com, paulus@...ba.org,
	acme@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCHSET] sched,perf: unify tracers in sched and move perf
 on top of TP

Hello,

On 05/05/2010 11:51 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> I was wondering the other way around - ie. the possibility to make
>> perf optional and maybe even as a module which depends on TPs, which
>> would be nicer than the current situation and make the code less
>> cluttered too. 
> 
> I really really hate making perf rely on tracepoints.

Hmmm.... may I ask why?  Unifying hooking mechanism seems like a good
idea to me and it's not like it's gonna add any runtime overhead
although it does complicate init/exit but well that's something you
have to pay if you wanna do things dynamically and sans the ifdef
stuff it's like a couple hundred lines of isolated code.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/