[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1273129464.5605.228.camel@twins>
Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 09:04:24 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: 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 Thu, 2010-05-06 at 08:31 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> 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.
>
> Direct calls into code were fine 10 years ago, but since then we got:
>
> - preempt notifiers
Are per task an no good for driving perf.
> - sw events
> - tracepoints
Are unrelated to the core perf scheduler calls.
> Which add up to a lot more than just a plain call into code.
>
> Also, with the jump-optimizations we will have tracepoints that are _cheaper_
> than a plain function call.
Which can just as easily be used on the core perf hooks.
> > Also, we don't need ABI muck for this.
>
> we already have an ABIs in place here - this would just properly unify and
> enumerate it.
I'm not getting it, this is about in-kernel stuff, there are _NO_ in
kernel ABIs.
--
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