linux-kernel - Re: Perf can't deal with many tracepoints

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, 27 Oct 2010 20:40:47 -0400
From:	Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>
Cc:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Perf can't deal with many tracepoints

On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 05:16:18PM -0700, David Daney wrote:
> Tracing is supposed to be low overhead.  Forcing people to decode
> things like this at the trace point, may take more code and cause
> the trace data to be larger, making it slower than necessary.
> 
> If there isn't a good reason to keep perf stupid, then making it
> smarter could be attractive.

Agreed.  Although one argument against making perf smarter is that
certain things such as the dev_t MAJOR/MINOR split is an internal
abstraction that could potentially vary from kernel to kernel.

And the question is whether perf really should be so different that if
you boot a different kernel, you had better have the right perf
installed.

							- 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/