[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100505183000.GF6320@nowhere>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 20:30:02 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
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
On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 08:16:36PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-05-05 at 20:15 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > Well, I'd much rather just see a direct call in the code than having to
> > reverse engineer wth hangs onto that _EVENT() junk.
>
> And again, I oppose mandating CONFIG_TRACEEVENT.
And me too. But you don't need CONFIG_EVENT_TRACING for that.
TRACE_EVENT() with !CONFIG_EVENT_TRACING only produces tracepoints
if CONFIG_TRACEPOINTS.
In fact, a first progress that would handle these compromizes would
be to have CONFIG_PERF_EVENT_SW.
For now perf_event_task_sched_in and perf_event_task_sched_out can
stay as is because they are perf core utils.
But all the rest (faults, migrations, etc..) could be tracepoints builtin
only if CONFIG_PERF_EVENT_SW.
Which means CONFIG_PERF_EVENT_SW depends on CONFIG_TRACEPOINTS.
But nobody is forced to build CONFIG_PERF_EVENT_SW, breakpoints don't need
it.
--
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